The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of appeal for parties adversely affected by the decision of the inferior court, as well as the concept of 'person interested' and the right of appeal for a company or local authority for whom land is acquired under an agreement.

1. By this petition the Kerala State Electricity Board seeks leave to appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha in L. A. R.4 of 1979 on the file of his court. The facts material for the present purpose are:- The State acquired 52.13 Ares of land in Sy. No. 270/1-6 of Thodupuzha village for the purpose of constructing Staff-Quarters for the employees of the Board at Thodupuzha under the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, Act 21 of 1962 (hereinafter, the Act). The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 950/- per Are besides a sum of Rs. 4,233-17 as value of improvements and Rs. 8,063.50 as solatium. The learned Subordinate Judge raised the rate of compensation for the land by Rs. 1,550/- per Are by fixing land value at the rate of Rs 2.500/-per Are. Consequently the quantum of solatium and interest also was enhanced. It is not disputed that the cost of acquisition is to be met by the K. S. E Board. The State has not preferred any appeal It is in these circumstances that the K. S. E. Board seeks permission to prefer an appeal from the decision in L A. R.4 of 1979 mentioned above.

2. Under S.60 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from the award or from any part of the award of the court as if it is a decree of a civil court under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and subject to such rules as may be prescribed. No rule governing such appeals have been made.

3. S.96 of the Code provides that 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.

4. Neither S.60 of the Act nor S.96 of the Code, in terms and expressly, say as to who can appeal to a superior court against the decision of an inferior court, nor do those provisions expressly preclude any one adversely affected by the decision of the inferior court from taking up the decision of the inferior court in appeal to a superior court In short, neither of these provisions limit the right of appeal against the inferior court's decision to parties to the proceedings before the inferior court, either by expressly stating as to who alone can appeal or as to who all cannot appeal to the superior court. However, normally one or the other of the parties to the proceedings before the inferior court is bound and affected by that court's decision, and therefore, when such a party who is adversely affected by that court's decision prefers an appeal, the appellate court, need not and will not enquire as to whether he is adversely affected or not by the impugned decision. In other words, a party-appellant enters the superior court without being asked whether he is in any manner adversely affected by the decision of the inferior court. But even such a party will have no right of appeal unless he is in fact affected by the decision of the inferior court.

5. What about one who is not eo nomine a party to the proceedings before the inferior court? Can be, if he is adversely affected by the decision of the interior court, take up the matter to the superior court, is the next question to be considered. It will be useful to understand as to what is meant by the right of appeal, and we will, therefore, quote the following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar v Krishnaji (AIR 1970 SC. 1 at 4) in this connection:

"Such a right was one of entering a superior Court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the Court below. Two things which were required to constitute appellate jurisdiction were the existence of the relation of superior and inferior court and the power on the part of the former to review decisions of the latter. In the well known work of Story on Constitution (of United States) Vol. 2, Art.1761. it is stated that the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted and does not creat