JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. This appeal, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court, is directed against the order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OWP No. 1061/2012 titled “Abdul Qayoom Nizami Vs. Collector Land Acquisition (ACR), Ramban & Anr.”, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by Respondent No. 2 herein under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir and set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge, Ramban [“the Reference Court”] on 24.05.2012 in a reference pending before it under Section 18 and 31 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 [“the Act”]

2. Mr. P N Raina, learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment impugned on the ground that an appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in the exercise of powers of superintendence vested in the Court under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir.

3. Before we advert to the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Raina, a brief narration of facts leading to the filing of this appeal would be necessary:

4. The appellant and the Respondent No. 2 are real brothers and have a dispute with regard to land measuring 32 Kanals comprising in Khasra Nos. 727, 728, 731, 747 and 729 in Village Maitra Govindpora, Tehsil Ramban [“the subject land”]. The subject land has been acquired by the State Government for public purpose. In view of the dispute having arisen between the parties with regard to the apportionment of the compensation, a reference has been made by the Collector Land Acquisition, Ramban/the Respondent No. 1 herein to learned District Judge, Ramban. During the pendency of reference, the appellant herein moved an application seeking release of the amount deposited by the Respondent No. 1 in the Reference Court as 80% of the compensation for the acquisition of subject land. On the application moved by the appellant, the Reference Court released the sum of ₹ 38,10,640/- in his favour vide order dated 04.05.2012 as an amount purportedly falling in the share of the appellant as per the award.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir which was registered as OWP No. 1061/2012. The petition was contested by the appellant, however, the learned Single Judge vide order impugned dated 18.08.2017 allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 24.05.2012 passed by the Reference Court and directed the appellant to deposit in the Reference Court, the amount released in his favour, within a period of two weeks. It is this order which is called in question before us in an appeal filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, we deem it appropriate to extract Clause 12 of the Letters Patent hereinbelow:

“12….. And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of judicature from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence) of one judge of the said High court or one judge of any Division Court and that notwithstanding anything herein before provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of “one Judge of the said High Court or one judge of” any Division Court, a consistently with the provisions of the civil procedure code, made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdicti