Back
Rules Appeals Under Land Acquisition Act Lie Only Under Section 54
A of the has settled a significant procedural question: an appeal against a decree passed by a in proceedings under is maintainable only under Section 54 of the Act, and not under .
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta delivered the judgment in L.A.A.S. No. 10 of 2026, arising from a dispute over the apportionment of compensation for acquired land. The appellant, P. Babu, challenged an order passed on a Section 30 reference made by the Special Deputy Collector. At the stage of admission, the second respondent raised a that the appeal under Section 54 was not maintainable.
The Procedural Crossroads
The core legal question revolved around the correct appellate forum. limits appeals to the High Court “from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court,” while provides a broad right of appeal from any original decree. The respondent argued that the ’s decision—being a decree under of the Land Acquisition Act—could only be assailed under the general provision of .
The appellant’s counsel, , countered that the appeal squarely fell within Section 54, as the proceedings arose from a under the Act itself.
Analyzing the Statutory Scheme
The court conducted a detailed interpretation of the relevant provisions. It traced the relationship between a under and the ’s adjudication under Sections 18 and 30. Crucially, it observed that while the ’s order is deemed a decree under , that does not alter the appellate remedy. The court noted:
“Had it been the intention of the Legislature that decrees passed by the under Section 30 should be appealable under Section 96 of C.P.C., there would have been no necessity to enact a special appellate provision under Section 54 of the L.A. Act. The very incorporation of Section 54 demonstrates the that appeals arising from adjudications made in proceedings under the Act should be governed exclusively by the .”
The Bench further clarified that the expression “in any proceedings under this Act” in Section 54 encompasses references under both Sections 18 and 30. It explained that a Section 30 reference “stands on the same footing as a reference under Section 18,” as both are statutory references arising from the .
Overruling Earlier Precedent
The court directly addressed the conflicting view taken by a single judge in The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Khammam v. Sarvadevabhatla Ramanadham (1977 SCC Online AP 286), which had held that an appeal from a Section 30 order lies under . The held that this interpretation was “not the correct interpretation of Section 54” as it ignored the phrase “in any proceedings under this Act.” Accordingly, the earlier judgment was overruled on that point.
The court also distinguished the precedent in Bollineni Srihari Rao v. Competent Authority and Special Collector (A.S. No. 8 of 2025), which arose under the —a statute with no special appellate provision—making it inapplicable to the present case.
The Final Verdict
Rejecting the , the court held that an appeal against a decree passed by the in proceedings under Section 18 or Section 30 is maintainable only under . The procedural rules of the CPC apply only to the manner of filing the appeal, not to the right of appeal itself. The matter has been listed for hearing on the merits on .
The ruling brings clarity to a frequently contested point of land acquisition litigation and ensures that the special statutory remedy remains the exclusive route for challenging adjudications.
