The decision of the learned Single Judge deciding the appeal filed under Sec. 11 of the Act is not a judgment and it being not a judgment, the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable.

R.A.Sharma, J.

1. Whether appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, from the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in an appeal filed under Sec. 11 of the Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an award of an arbitrator is maintainable, is the question which is required to be decided at the threshold in these appeals

2. In L.P.A. Nos. 330 & 331 of 1998 (R), which have been filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge in appeals filed under Sec. 11 of the Act against the award, the Registry has raised the preliminary objection about their maintainability under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection, and reserved the judgment.

3. During the course of argument on the preliminary question, the learned Counsel for the appellants have stated that there are two other L.P.A. Nos. 157/98 (R) and 311/98 (R) which have also been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge deciding the appeal filed under Sec. 11 of the Act against the award of the Arbitrator which have already been admitted. We, therefore, summoned the records of those two appeals also, from perusal of which it appeared that no objection regarding maintainability of those appeals was raised by the Registry, on account of which they were admitted without deciding the question of their maintainability. We, therefore, directed that L.P.A. Nos. 330/98 (R) and 331 /98 (R) be listed again along with L.P.A. Nos. 157/98 (R) and 311 / 98 (R) for hearing of the preliminary objection. Regarding maintainability. All these four cases were thereafter listed before us for hearing on the preliminary objection about their maintainability.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. In L.P.A. Nos. 330/98 (R) and 3.31/9.8 (R), the land was requisitioned in 1942 under the provisions of Defence of India Act by the Central Government for construction of Army Camp, The land so requisitioned was subsequently acquired under the Act. The Deputy Commissioner fixed the compensation but the land owners not being satisfied within, requested for appointment of an Arbitrator under the Act for determination of the compensation. As the authority concerned did not appoint the Arbitrator, they filed a writ petition in this Court being CWJC No. 1543/92 (R) which was disposed of directing the Central Government or its delegates to appoint an Arbitrator under Sec. 8( l)(b) of the Act. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Arbitrator was appointed who gave an award determining the compensation for the land acquired. The owners of the land filed appeals M.A. Nos. 38/94 (R) and 39/94 (R) under Sec. 11 of the Act before this Court challenging the awards of the Arbitrator. The appeals were decided by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 9-3-1998 Being aggrieved thereby, the Union of India has two L.P.A. Nos, 330 & 331/98 (R).

6. In L.P.A. Nos. 157/98 (R) and 311 /98 (R) also, the land was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act and Rules framed thereunder in or about 1962. Initially, compensation was fixed by the Deputy Commissioner with which land owners were not satisfied and at their instance Arbitrator under Sec. 8 of the Act was appointed who gave an award determining the compensation. Both the parties challenged the award by filing appeals under Sec. 11 of the Act. The learned Single Judge had decided these two appeals against which two appeals have been filed by both the parties under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

7. Sec. 8 of the Act has laid down the principles and methods of determining the compensation. It provides that where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act, there shall be paid compensation amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out." Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 8 provides for appointmen