R. K. Manisana, C. J. (Acting) - This appeal arises from the awards of the Court of Special Judicial Officer at Shillong (which we shall refer to as the `Court') made on 29 October 1991 in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 31 (M) to 36 (M) of 1990 on reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short). The Court disposed of the six cases by a common judgment enhancing the awards made by the Collector. The last sentence of judgment is: "Prepare a decree accordingly and separately". The State of Meghalaya has presented only one "memorandum of appeal" against the common judgment valuing the appeal at Rs. 64,65, 430.44, most probably aggregate value of the awards. The memorandum of appeal is also accom­panied by/with an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act for not filing the appeal within the period prescribed.

2. Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the appeal is not maintainable as only one `memorandum of appeal' has been filed against the six awards, and that is also without accompanying a copy of any of the awards.

3. The question which arises for our consideration is -

(1) Whether only one appeal or one memorandum of appeal can be filed against six awards of the Court? and

(2) Whether the appeal is not maintainable as the memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by a copy of the decree or award of the Court?

4. Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides that, save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Act. Under section 44 of the Act, subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals from original decree, and notwithstanding anyhing to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under the Act to the High Court from the award or from any part of the award, of the Court. In the above view of the matter, section 96 and Order 41 Rule I are relevant in the present case.

5. Under section 96, CPC, save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorised to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court. Therefore, section 96, CPC provides for an appeal against a decree and not against the judgment.

6. Under section 26(2) of the Act, an award of the Court on reference under section 18 of the Act is to be deemed as a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of sections 2 (2) and 2 (9) respectively of the Code. Under section 2(2) a decree is the formal expression of an adjudication. Section 2(9) defines `judgment' to mean "the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order". A reading of section 96, CPC, and section 26 of the Act makes it clear that each decree or award should be the subject matter of an indepen­dent appeal and that one appeal against two decrees passed in different suits is not contemplated.

7. Mr. A Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya, has referred us to a decision of the Nagpur High Court reported as Sheoran, vs. Hiraman, AIR 1929 Magpur 229 (FB), in order to show that only one memorandum can be filed in such a case. The case cited by the learned counsel is inapplicable to the present case. In that case there were two appeals from a decree, one filed by the plaintiff and the other, by the defendants. The lower appellate Court delivered two separate judgments and drew up two separate decrees. With his memorandum of appeal the appellant filed copies of both judgments and both decrees, and in the memorandum, he has stated mat he was appealing from two decrees. The Nagpur High Court has held that in the circumstances of the case it was justified to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document