Skip to content


Union of India Vs. Sir Sal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRegular First Appeal No. 293 of 1973 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 855 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1974RLR532
ActsLand Acquisition Act - Sections 54; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 47
AppellantUnion of India
RespondentSir Sal
Advocates: V.P. Nanda and; J.K. Jala, Advs
Cases Referred and State of Kerala v. Kunhammed Koya Haji
Excerpt:
- .....the finality whereof is destroyed by the order which is passed after reviewing the same. the award made in terms of the judgment dated the 30th of august, 1573, does not exist in the eye of law. in terms of section 54 of the aforesaid act the appeal would lie only against the award which presently binds the parties on account of the order made on the 14th of december, 1973. (4) this application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the award made in terms of the judgment dated the 30th of august, 1973, is meritless. no appeal lies against the award based on the judgment made on the 30th of august. 1973. the appeal itself being incompetent, the application to condone the delay in filing the same is frivolous. the application and the appeal both are dismissed by this.....
Judgment:

Pritam Singh Safeer

(1) The application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1973. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the application that the last day for filing the appeal was the 14th of December, 1973, and that the certified copy of the judgment got mixed up with other papers, for which reason the appeal could not be filed in time. Paragraph 3 of the application states that the judgment dated the 30th of August, 1973, against which the appeal was being filed was found mixed up with other papers.

(2) In the course of hearing of the application it was brought to my notice that after an award was made by the court below in terms of it judgment dated the 30th of August, 1973, on accepting a. review application the same court altered the award by its order made on 14th December, 1973. No appeal has been filed against the award which emerges out of the modifications made by the order dated the 14th of the December, 1973, and which award at prevent prevails between the parties.

(3) In terms of the judgment made on the 30th of August, 1973, compensation had been awarded to Bir Bal as an owner. The award which now holds the field affects all the four items mentioned in paragraph 10 of the judgment dated the 30th of August, 1973. In terms of the judgment made on the 30th of August, 1973. Bir Bal could have received Rs. 900.00 per Bigha over and above the compensation awarded under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act- That has been cut down by 40 per cent by the award which emerges out of the order passed on 14th December, 1973. In the same ratio items 2, 3 and 4 in paragraph 10 of the judgment made on 30th August, 1973, are affected.. No appeal has been filed against the award which now ultimately prevails between the parties in consequence of the order made by the court below on the 14th of December, 1973. Section 54 in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, permits an appeal against an award or any part of it, to this court. The word 'award' used in the provision means the award which may be prevailing between the parties and which may bind them for purposes of the said Act. No appeal would be competent against an award, the finality whereof is destroyed by the order which is passed after reviewing the same. The award made in terms of the judgment dated the 30th of August, 1573, does not exist in the eye of law. In terms of section 54 of the aforesaid Act the appeal would lie only against the award which presently binds the parties on account of the order made on the 14th of December, 1973.

(4) This application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the award made in terms of the judgment dated the 30th of August, 1973, is meritless. No appeal lies against the award based on the judgment made on the 30th of August. 1973. The appeal itself being incompetent, the application to condone the delay in filing the same is frivolous. The application and the appeal both are dismissed by this order. The view which I have expressed is supported by the law laid down in Chander Lal v. Collector of Bareilly, A.I.R. 1922 All 203 and State of Kerala v. Kunhammed Koya Haji, 1970 K L T.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //