( 1 ) IN proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act about 873 acres of land belonging to the petitioner were acquired by the State and a sum of Rs. 1739/10/- was assessed as compensation. The petitioner made a claim for Rs. 75,000/- as compensation and eventually had the matter referred to the District Judge under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. The District Judge held that the proper compensation was Rs. 5365/8/- but that, in view of the provisions of Section 25 (2) of the Act he could award only Rs. 1739/10/- and he made an award to that effect.

( 2 ) THE petitioner appealed but he confined his appeal to a sum of Rs. 46,000/ -. In this Court on the date fixed for hearing, one of the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear and the two who did appear stated that they had no instructions to press the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution on 6-4-1954 by a Division Bench.

( 3 ) ON 8-4-1954 an application was presented under Order 41, Rule 17 and Section 151, C. P. C. , through another counsel for restoration of the appeal to its original number. It was stated in this application that the applicant had no knowledge of the date of the hearing and that his counsel had given him no information with regard to it. This application was supported by an affidavit but it was dismissed by the same Bench on 19-7-1954, on the ground that no sufficient cause had been made out for a reconsideration of the matter.

( 4 ) THE petitioner then applied on 18-10-1954, under Article 133 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the order re fusing to restore the appeal. The application gave all the material facts and also stated that the value of the subject-matter of the proposed appeal was over Rs. 20,000/ -. It did not, however, set out the grounds of the proposed appeal.

( 5 ) THE petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of which one of us was a member. It was considered that the question raised called for the construction of the words "final order" used in Article 133 of the Constitution. The learned Judges referred to a large number of decisions. They held that most of the cases were distinguishable on the facts but that the principles to be deduced from them were that to make an order a final order three conditions must be satisfied, namely:

" (1) That it should not be an interlocutory I order; (2) That even though it is an order which dis poses of the proceedings before a Court finally, it should not be an order which leaves the original proceedings in the Court below alive and (3) That there should be a final determination. of the rights of the parties or the order must of its own force affect the rights of the parties. "

They then held:"it seems to us that the order in question in the present case finally denies to the applicant the right of his appeal being re-heard and thus affirms the dismissal of the appeal which in its terms affirms the decision of the lower Court. This is a very serious matter for the applicant. If the order in question can be considered a final order, we would have thought a substantial question of law arose in the case and we would have granted leave to appeal to the Supreme court. In our view the cases of Mt. Bismillah Begam v. Hira Lal, 1917 All 313 (1) (AIR V 4) (A) and Krishna Bant v. Lala Amarnath, 1937 All 566 (AIR V 24); (B) require consideration. "

( 6 ) THE case was accordingly referred to a larger Bench and the present Full Bench has been constituted for the purpose of deciding the question.

( 7 ) BY the enforcement of the Constitution the law relating to appeals from decisions of High court has undergone a considerable modification. Under Section 109, C. P. C. , appeals lay only

" (a) from any decree or final order passed on appeal by a High Court. . . . . . . . . . . (b) from any decree or final order passed by a High Court in the exercise of original jurisdiction; and (c) from any decree or order, when the case, as here