D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS Second Appeal. under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity "c. P. C. "), is before us by way of reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court expressing his view that the appeal suit A. S. No. 12 of 2004, which was filed before the learned 11 Additional District Judge, Adilabad, was not maintainable and, as a matter of fact, the said appeal suit A. S. No. 12 of 2004 ought to have been filed before this Court under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity "the Act" ). The learned single judge further opined that if an appeal is filed before the District Judge, the same amounts to providing parallel appeals under the Act and hence, the learned single Judge was of the prima facie view that the appeal suit filed before the learned II Additional District Judge, adilabad, was not maintainable. However, in order to have an authoritative pronouncement on this aspect, the matter had been referred to a Division Bench. Hence, the Second appeal is before us under the caption "for admission".

( 3 ) THE appellant is Claimant No. 2, respondent No. 1 is the Referring Officer and Respondent No. 2 is Claimant No. 1, respectively, in the appeal suit A. S. No. 12 of 2004.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the appeal suit.

( 5 ) THE undisputed facts are that the land in dispute was acquired; possession was taken by the Government and that there were certain rival claims between Claimant nos. 1 and 2. Consequently, a reference was made under Section 30 of the Act for depositing the amount, as envisaged under section 31 (2) of the Act, in the Court of senior Civil Judge, Adilabad. The reference was taken on file and was numbered as o. P. 13 of 2000. After hearing both parties in the said O. P. , the order went in favour of claimant No. 1, while rejecting the claim of claimant No. 2.

( 6 ) HAVING felt aggrieved, Claimant No. 2 filed an appeal before the II Additional District judge, Adilabad, which was numbered as a. S. No. 12 of 2004 and eventually the same was dismissed on merits, by judgment and decree, dated 18-1-2005, which is under challenge before this Court by way of present second Appeal.

( 7 ) WHEN the matter came up for admission, the learned single Judge had expressed a doubt regarding the correctness of the judgment rendered by this Court in Dy. Director of Agriculture v. S. Ramanadham. The learned single Judge further opined that maintaining an appeal before the II Additional district Judge, Adilabad, challenging the order passed in the O. P. , may prima facie amount to providing parallel appeals under the Act.

( 8 ) AT the outset, we are of the considered view that this issue is no longer res Integra. In fact, the self-same issue had fallen for consideration quite some time back before the High Court of Madras in Mahalinga v. Theetharappa. Of course, there are other judgments on this subject rendered by other high Courts also.

( 9 ) THE same issue had also fallen for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in S. Ramanadham s case (1 supra ).

( 10 ) IN the said case also, the point for determination was, whether the order passed by the lower Court against which an appeal was preferred was an award within the meaning of Section 54 of the Act. In the said case also, an objection had been raised by the office regarding the maintainability of the appeal before this Court, of course, in view of the fact that the value of the appeal was less than the amount prescribed and further that since the order of the lower Court was a decree within the meaning of Section 96 c. P C. , an appeal lies only to the District court. Similar is the question before this court in this Second Appeal.

( 11 ) WHILE dealing with this issue, the learned single Judge of this Court in s. Ramanadham s case (1 supra) had taken into account the decision of the Privy Council in Ramachandra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document