Padmanabhan Nair, J.

Is an appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed by a Judge of this Court on an appeal against the Order or Decree of a Court or Tribunal maintainable despite Section 100A of the Code of Civil procedure as amended by Act 22 of 2002? This is the core of the controversy before this Bench in these two Appeals from First Appeals filed under Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act read with Order XLII-A of the Code of Civil procedure.

2. A.F.A.83 of 2002 arises form the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Land Acquisition Appeal No.467 of 1999 of this Court. This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara in L.A.R. 24 of 1989 under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The dispute was regarding apportionment of the amount. The trial court found that all claimants are entitled to a share in the amount of compensation. One of the claimants, who claimed exclusive right over the entire compensation, filed the Land Acquisition Appeal. Since the value of the subject matter of the appeal was below Rupees One Lakh, the appeal was heard and disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court as provided under Section 3(13)(b) of the Kerala High Court Act. The learned Single Judge did not accept the appellant's case as such but modified the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Dissatisfied with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, the appellant before the learned Single Judge has filed A.F.A.83 of 2002.

3. A.F.A.87 of 2002 is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.6.2002 in M.F.A.1345 of 1996. Late Velayudhan filed O.P. (M.V.) 2134 of 1993 claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road accident involving a motor vehicle. During the pendency of the O.P.(M.V.), Velayudhan died and his legal representatives were impleaded. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.11,306/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs.60,000/=. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased claimant filed an appeal before this Court as provided under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the value of the subject matter of that appeal was below Rs.1,00,000/- the same was also heard and disposed of by a learned Single judge. The compensation awarded was enhanced to Rs.35,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%. The insurer has filed A.F.A. 87 of 2002 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

4. In A.F.A. No.83 of 2003, the Registry has raised an objection that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a decision reported in State of Kerala v. Kiriyan Varghese, 2001(2) KLT 416 (FB). The Division Bench noted the fact that the decision of the Full Bench in Kiriyan Varghese's case (Supra) is in conflict with the decision of another Full Bench in Premavally v. State of Kerala, 1998 (1) KLT 882 (FB). In view of the conflict between the two decisions, the Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench. Accordingly, the matter was placed before this Bench.

5. The question that arose for consideration in Kiriyan Varhese's case (Supra) was whether the appeals arising under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act could be heard by a Single Judge in the absence of such a provision in section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and whether a further appeal to the Division Bench under Section 5(ii) is maintainable against the decision rendered by the Single Judge. Though the subsequent Full Bench disagreed with the principles laid down in Premavally's case (Supra), it was found that the decision rendered by a Single Judge disposing of an appeal under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is subject to a further appeal to the Division Bench in view of the provisions contained in Section 5(ii) of the High Court Act. Those