1. When these appeals were filed the office put up a note indicating that in terms of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, from any decree of the High Court passed in an appeal, an appeal would lie to the Honble Supreme Court of India. The matter was, accordingly, submitted for orders with regard to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.

2. In order to appreciate the objection indicated by the office, Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is set out:

54. Appeals in proceedings before Court. -- 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 proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in Order XLIV thereof.

3. At first glance, the Letters Patent Appeal appears to be not maintainable in view of the stipulation that an appeal from an order of the High Court would lie to the Supreme Court, but the said question has been considered not only by this Court but also by the Honble Supreme Court in several cases and the issue, in our view, is no longer res Integra, as pointed out by Mr. V. Shivnath, appearing in support of the appeal, as far as the right to maintain Letters Patent Appeal vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is concerned. Mr. Shivnath submitted that the said question fell for consideration of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in its Ranchi Bench in LPA No. 39 of 1988 in the case of State of Bihar v. Smt. Sharda Devi, reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 155. While considering, amongst others the provisions of Clause 10 of the Patna High Court Rules relating to the rules under Letters Patent, it was held in no uncertain terms that a Letters Patent Appeal was not barred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In explaining its conclusion, the Full Bench distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baljit Singh v. State of Haryana, CA No. 1663-1968 of 1982, wherein it had been held that a Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in a case arising under the Land Acquisition Act. It was sought to be observed that the judgment of the Supreme Court proceeded not on the basis of any finding as such, but on a concession made by counsel. A similar view was also expressed by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mahli Devi v. Chander Bhan and Ors. reported in AIR 1995 Delhi 293, which was also a case in which the provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was under consideration. In the said case the view expressed in Baljit Singhs case was recorded as having been based on a concession on an erroneous reading of an earlier decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of South Asia Industries (P) Ltd v. Sarup Singh and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1442. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court also observed that the wording of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act merely refers to the forum of appeal and the non-obstante clause did not restrict the right to appeal from one Bench of the High Court to another Bench as was provided for in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

4. Mr. Shivnath urged that the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in its Ranchi Bench in the case of Sharda Devi also fell for consideration of the Honble Supreme Court, which affirmed the view expressed by the Full Bench. The Supreme Court clarified the position that the judgment in Baljit Singhs case was based on a concession and also on the judgment in the South Asia Industries case which did not deal with Section 54 of the Land Acquisit