Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—This revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.9.2014 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 19/2003, Subhash v. M/s. Green Valley Samuhik Krishi Samiti Ltd., by the Court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Buddha Nagar, by which application 54-C of opposite party of the case was rejected.

2. In the Court below, proceeding under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is going on for apportionment of compensation between the parties. During said proceedings, revisionist moved the application 54-C with averment that one original suit No. 57/2001, Subhash v. Shadi Ram and others, is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gautam Budha Nagar, which has been filed by applicant Subhash for declaring void the sale-deed executed by late Turmal in favour of M/s. Green Valley Samuhik Krishi Samiti Ltd. Since matter in issue and point to be determined in present reference and aforesaid suit No. 57/2001 are same that as to whether Turmal had executed sale-deed dated 4.1.1985 in favour of opposite party Samiti or not, and since parties of the reference and original suit are common; therefore the proceeding of present reference be stayed till judgment of original suit No. 57 of 2001.

3. On application 54-C the lower Court had obtained objection 58-C from opposite party, in which it was pleaded that the relief sought and dispute between present reference and original suit No. 57/2001, Subhash v. Shadi Ram and others, are not common. Original suit No. 57/2001 was instituted for cancellation of sale-deed, whereas present reference is pending for payment of compensation. This Court dealing with reference has no jurisdiction to stay proceedings of any other Court. Therefore the application of opposite party should be rejected.

4. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the Court below had decided application 54-C and objection 58-C by its order dated 26.9.2014, by which said application 54-C was rejected. Aggrieved by this impugned order dated 26.9.2014, the opposite party of the land acquisition reference case had preferred present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that land reference is made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court which adopts similar procedure as that of Civil Court, and Section 26 of this Act provides that award of land acquisition reference is executable as a decree. Therefore, the proceeding of apportionment under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act on reference by Collector to Court is a ‘’decree’. He further contended that proceedings of such reference can be stayed under Section 10 C.P.C. till decision of original suit No. 57/2001, because the main question to be determined is the validity of execution of registered sale-deed by Turmal to opposite party is basis of determination of dispute between the parties in both the suits.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is a general law that for special enactments, if no procedure is otherwise provided, then procedure mentioned in C.P.C. will be adopted. Some times for removal or inconveniences in procedure applicability of general provisions of C.P.C. are mentioned in special enactments, but for these reason only proceedings before any other forum under any special Act cannot be treated as proceeding of the ‘’suit’ as mentioned in C.P.C. He further contended that Court below had jurisdiction to dispose of application 54-C and it cannot be said that by rejection of application 54-C it has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or had acted illegally or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. He further contended that mere the proceedings under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act are not proceedings of a ‘’suit’ and judgment of one case would not operate as res judicata for another Court. Therefore, application 54-C was misconceived and Court below had committed no factual or legal error