A.S. Chandurkar, J.

1. The question that arises in both these appeals is whether adjudication of reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be challenged by way of appeal under Section 54 of the said Act or whether the same is required to be challenged by way of appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code).

2. Facts in First Appeal No. 1046/2014 are being referred to. The Reference Court therein while deciding reference proceedings under Section 30 of the said Act held the present respondent to be entitled to 1/3rd amount of compensation and the appellant entitled to 1/4th amount of compensation. This adjudication by the Reference Court is sought to be challenged by way of appeal under Section 54 of the said Act.

3. When this appeal was taken up for admission, Shri M.G. Sarda, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the appeal on the ground that no appeal under Section 54 of the said Act was maintainable for challenging the decision of the Reference Court under Section 30 of the said Act. According to the learned Counsel, the adjudication under Section 30 of the said Act is not related to the amount of compensation, but relates to the dispute regarding title between the contesting parties and hence, said decision could be challenged only by preferring an appeal under Section 96 of the Code. It was submitted that under Section 26 of the said Act only an award passed under Section 18 of the said Act is covered and provisions of Section 30 fall in Part IV of the said Act. He, therefore, submitted that on the basis of monetary valuation, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court would be determined and appeal under Section 96 of the Code would lie before such Court. In support of his preliminary objection, the learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:

[1] Bai Lalita v. Shardaben and others, AIR 1970 Gujarat 37.

[2] Gutudatta Housing Society versus Maruti Bali Kokate and others, 1980 Mh. L.J 619.

[3] Motte Rajaram versus Revenue Divisional Officer and another 2006 (2) ALT 477.

[4] State of Bihar versus Smt. Sharda Devi, 1997(1) BLJR 1.

4. Shri A.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that appeal under Section 54 of the said Act was tenable while challenging the adjudication under Section 30 of the said Act. According to him, Section 54 provides for remedy of appeal against order passed in an award of the Reference Court and, therefore, adjudication of proceedings under Section 30 of the said Act could be challenged by filing such appeal under Section 54 of the said Act. He placed reliance upon decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus S.U.T.N.I. Sangam Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 1 and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Indian Council of Agricultural Research and etc. versus Varija and Ors. (Smt.) AIR 2011 Karnataka 73.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the statutory provisions as well as the decisions pressed into service, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents to the tenability of the appeal under Section 54 of the said Act deserves to be upheld.

6. Section 54 of the said Act which provides for remedy of appeal reads thus:-

"54. Appeals in proceedings before Court.-- Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to [the Supreme Court] subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), and in Order XLV thereof.]"

7. The term "award" has not been specifically