SHELAT, J.:- This appeal raises a short, yet an important point as to whether the decision of the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) passed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is appealable to the High Court under Section 54 of the Act, and if not, whether any such decision (where the amount or subject-matter involved is less than Rs. 10,000) is appealable, and if so, only to the High Court, or to the Court of the District Judge, under whom it is subordinate. The lands bearing S. Nos. 120, 243, 163, 170, 236, 237, 238, 228 and 227 came to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening the National Highway No. 8 from Bareja to Ahmedabad. The claim for compensation was made before the Special Land Acquisition officer at Ahmedabad and the compensation was awarded to the claimants as per the award Ex. 2 produced in the case. Of the various claimants, Nos. 1, 4, 6, 10, 12 and 14 were the landlords, while the others were tenants. There arose a disputa amongst the landlords and tenants, only in regard to the apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded for the lands under acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, referred the dispute for apportionment of the compensation amongst the claimants under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' to the District Court at Narol. The Compensation Case No. 70/62 on the file of the District Court, Narol, then came to be transferred for disposal in accordance with law to the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Ahmedabad under Section 3(d) of the Act. The learned Judge found that the claimants who were the tenants in respect of the lands under acquisition were entitled to get 5 annas share in a rupee as against the landlords-claimants getting 11 annas share in a rupee. In the result, he passed an order directing the amount of compensation to be so apportioned. Feeling dissatisfied with that order passed on 24th June, 1963 by Mr. D. B. Naik, Civil Judge (S.D.) Narol, only Bai Lalita, daughter of Chhotalal, the owner of S. Nos. 236, 237 and 238, who was claimant No. 12 before the Court has come in appeal. The respondent No. 1 Shardaben, widow of Manibhai Chhanabhai, the claimant No. 13 before the Court below, claimed compensation on the ground of her being a tenant in respect of those lands.

2. Before this appeal could be heard on merits, a preliminary point was raised by Mr. Shah, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, that since this appeal is directed only against a decision of the Court under Section 30 of the Act, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act no appeal is competent before this Court under Section 54 of the Act. According to him, even if such a decision amounts to a decree and is appealable under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the appeal would lie to the District Court, at Narol, it being a Court competent to hear an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 8 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act as applied to this State,- the claim being or even the amount to be apportioned being only Rs. 2722.37 nP. and that way less than Rs. 10,000/-. Now, it is common ground that the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) was competent to hear such references as also references under Section 18 of the Act, in view of the expression 'Court' defined in Section 3(d) of the Act as including the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) to which the matter under this Act is transferred by the "principal Court of the original jurisdiction in the area." The only provision under which an appeal lies to the High Court against any decision of such a "Court" contemplated in Section 3(d) in the proceedings under this Act, is Section 54 of the Act. It runs thus:-

"54. Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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 proc