IMPORTANT POINT
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, there is no bar to maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against a judgment passed in an appeal u/s. 54 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 25th April, 1988.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Appellant claims that by a Registered Deed of Settlement dated 24th April, 1954 the land was settled in favour of one Dev Narayan Prasad. On 19th February 1955, by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the land vested in the State of Bihar. The Appellant claims that the State has been receiving rent from the said Dev Narayan Prasad. On 9th February, 1962 the said Dev Narayan Prasad sold the said land to the Appellant by a registered Sale Deed.

3. On 18th May, 1979 a notice was issued to the Appellant under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act. The Appellant replied to the Notice. Whilst these proceedings were pending, on 16th January 1982 a Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the said Act). This was followed by a Declaration under Section 6 on 25th May, 1982. The Appellant filed a claim under Section 9 of the said Act. Similarly, the Circle Officer, on behalf of the State, filed a claim under Section 9 of the said Act. An Award came to be passed in favour of the Appellant on 19th February, 1985. The State filed a Reference under Section 30 of the said Act for determination of the title. The State claimed that they were entitled to receive compensation. On 6th September, 1986 the Land Acquisition Judge held in favour of the Appellant. The State then filed an Appeal which was dismissed on 25th April, 1988.

4. The State then filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. This Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the impugned Judgment dated 1st May, 1996. The case has been remanded back to the single Judge for decision in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench.

5. When this matter reached hearing on 31th January, 2002 the following Order has been passed by this Court:

"One of the questions that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable before the Letters Patent Bench against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of the High Court passed in an appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. In Civil Appeal Nos. 1663-1968 of 1982 (Baljit Singh and Ors. etc. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.), a Bench of two Judges of this Court held that no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court whereas in the case of Basant Kumar vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 11 SCC 542, a Bench of three Judges, without adverting to the decision in Baljit Singh & Ors. etc. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) held that such an appeal is maintainable.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

On a plain reading of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, we are, prima facie, of the view that no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. However, since no reason has been assigned in the case of Basant Kumar vs. Union of India (supra) for holding that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court passed in an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Act, we are of the view that this case requires to be decided by a Bench of three Hon ble Judges.

Let this matter be placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders."

Hence the Appeal has been placed before us.

6. In the case of Baljit Singh and Ors. etc. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., two Judges of this Court have held as follows:

"The short question raised is whether the Letters Patent Appeals were maintainable under the law. The learned Counsel for the appellants agreed that such appeals did not lie on the authority of a Judgment of this Court in Asia Industries vs. Sarup (1965(2) SCR 756) where a four Judge bench has clearly held that such an appeal does not lie. On this authority the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court has to be vacated and consequent