Skip to content


Dembeswar Sarma Vs. the Collector of Sibsagar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in39Ind.Cas.637
AppellantDembeswar Sarma
RespondentThe Collector of Sibsagar
Excerpt:
land acquisition act. (i of 1894), section 54 - order dismissing reference as time-barred--appeal, whether lies--revisim. - .....preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the collector that the application for reference was barred by limitation at the time it was made. the learned judge below held that it was barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed the case and the applicant has appealed to this court.2. as no award was made by the judge no appeal lies to this court, because under section 54 of the land acquisition act it is only an award or part of an award against which an appeal lies to this court. the case out of which this appeal arises was case no. 8 of 1913 in the lower court and was filed along with two other cases nos. 6 and 7 of 1913 and disposed of by the court below by one and the same judgment; and this court, on revision, set aside the order of the court below in the analogous cases nos. 6.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the Court below a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the Collector that the application for reference was barred by limitation at the time it was made. The learned Judge below held that it was barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed the case and the applicant has appealed to this Court.

2. As no award was made by the Judge no appeal lies to this Court, because under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act it is only an award or part of an award against which an appeal lies to this Court. The case out of which this appeal arises was Case No. 8 of 1913 in the lower Court and was filed along with two other Cases Nos. 6 and 7 of 1913 and disposed of by the Court below by one and the same judgment; and this Court, on revision, set aside the order of the Court below in the analogous Cases Nos. 6 and 7 on 18th January 1915 in Rules Nisi Nos. 986 and 991 of 1914. Under the circumstances, the appeal must be dismissed with costs, hearing fee five gold mohurn.

3. We may, however, treat the memorandum of appeal as an application for revision. We agree with the learned Judges, who decided Rules Nos. 986 and 991 of 1914 referred to above in the analogous Cases Nos. 6 and 7 of 1913, that the reference in the case was not barred by limitation and accordingly set aside the order of the Court below in the exercise of our powers of revision and direct the case to be remitted to the lower Court to be heard on the merits. This is, however, conditional on the appellant paying to the respondent the costs of both the Courts within one month of the arrival of this order in the Court below, failing which the order of the Court below will stand.


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