http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 14198 of 1996

PETITIONER:

SHARDA DEVI

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/03/2002

BENCH:

G.B. Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan & S.N. Variava

JUDGMENT:

S. N. VARIAVA, J.

1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 25th April, 1988.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Appellant claims that by a Registered Deed of Settlement dated

24th April, 1954 the land was settled in favour of one Dev Narayan

Prasad. On 19th February 1955, by virtue of Section 3(1) of the Bihar

Land Reforms Act, the land vested in the State of Bihar. The Appellant

claims that the State has been receiving rent from the said Dev

Narayan Prasad. On 9th February, 1962 the said Dev Narayan Prasad

sold the said land to the Appellant by a registered Sale Deed.

3. On 18th May, 1979 a notice was issued to the Appellant under

Section 3 of the Bihar Land Encroachment Act. The Appellant replied

to the Notice. Whilst these proceedings were pending, on 16th

January 1982 a Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the said Act). This was

followed by a Declaration under Section 6 on 25th May, 1982. The

Appellant filed a claim under Section 9 of the said Act. Similarly, the

Circle Officer, on behalf of the State, filed a claim under Section 9 of

the said Act. An Award came to be passed in favour of the Appellant

on 19th February, 1985. The State filed a Reference under Section 30

of the said Act for determination of the title. The State claimed that

they were entitled to receive compensation. On 6th September, 1986

the Land Acquisition Judge held in favour of the Appellant. The State

then filed an Appeal which was dismissed on 25th April, 1988.

4. The State then filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division

Bench. This Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by the impugned

Judgment dated 1st May, 1996. The case has been remanded back to

the single Judge for decision in the light of the observations made by

the Division Bench.

5. When this matter reached hearing on 31th January, 2002 the

following Order has been passed by this Court:

"One of the questions that arises for consideration in this

case is as to whether Letters Patent Appeal was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

maintainable before the Letters Patent Bench against the

judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of the

High Court passed in an appeal preferred under Section 54

of the Land Acquisition Act. In Civil Appeal Nos. 1663-

1968 of 1982 (Baljit Singh and Ors. etc. vs. State of

Haryana & Ors.), a Bench of two Judges of this Court

held that no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against

the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court

whereas in the case of Basant Kumar vs. Union of India

reportead in (1996) 11 SCC 542, a Bench of three Judges,

without adverting to the decision in Baljit Singh & Ors.

etc. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) held that such

an appeal is maintainable.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

On a plain reading of Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, we are, prima facie, of the view that no

Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. However, since no

reason has been assigned in the case of Basant Kumar

vs. Union of India (supra) for holding that the Letters

Paten Appeal is maintainable against the judgment of a

Single Judge of the High Court passed in an appeal filed

under Section 54 of the Act, we are of the view that this

case requires to be decided by a Bench of three Hon’ble

Judges.

Let this matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief

Justice of India for appropriate orders."

Hence the Appeal has been placed before us.

6. In the case of Baljit Singh and Ors. etc. vs. State of Haryana and

Ors., two Judges of this Court have held as follows:

"The short question raised is whether the Letters Patent

Appeals were