The Collector's order under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act is not appealable to the High Court under Section 54 as the Collector is not defined as a 'Court'.

1. The matter has been placed before this Bench on a reference made by learned single Judge for consideration of the following issue, as the order passed by an earlier Division Bench in Writ-C No. 2015 of 2021 was apparently found to be per incuriam:
'Whether the Collector, exercising powers under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a 'Court' and his order made on an application for re-determination of compensation, an award of the Court for the purpose of an appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1894?'

2. The order dated August 2, 2021 passed by learned single Judge, while referring the aforesaid question of law for consideration by larger Bench containing facts, in brief, is quoted below:
'This appeal has been preferred from an order of the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition/Awas), Kanpur Nagar dated 23.01.2001 passed in Case No. 15 of 2021. The said order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894'). An application was made to the Collector for determination of compensation payable to the claimant- respondent-landholders on ground that the Additional District Judge- IVth, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment and award dated 27.01.2021 passed in Reference No. 59/70/1994 relating to the same acquisition proceedings and covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894/28 of the Avas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam had granted a higher compensation then that awarded by the Collector.
This order of the Additional Collector is impugned in the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. At the outset, this Court inquired of Mr. Vivek Saran as to how a first appeal is maintainable from an order of the Collector made under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894. He invited the attention of the Court to an order of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ- C No. 2015 of 2021, where their Lordships of the Division Bench, after referring to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 and held that the writ petitioner has an efficacious remedy available under of the Act. A perusal of the aforesaid order, which summarily parts with the writ petition, indicates that there, their Lordships were of opinion that against an order under Section 28-A passed by the Collector, redetermining compensation on the basis of an award made by the Court in a reference under Section 18 covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, would be appealable to this Court under .
A reading of of the Act of 1894 clearly shows that the provision opens with a non obstante clause and says that appeal shall lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award or from any part of the award of the Court. This being so, the provisions of are explicit that what is appealable to this Court is an award or a part of the award of the 'Court'. The 'Court' has been defined under Section 3 (d) of the Act of 1894 as follows:
'3. Definitions. - In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context, -
(a) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(c) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(d) the expression 'Court' means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless, the (appropriate Government) has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special judicial officer within any specified local limits to perform functions of the Court under this Act;'
Clearly, to the understanding of this Court, the definition of 'Court' under the Act of 1894 means a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unles