362 of 1999.
It was, however, the allegation of the appellant that the Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar illegally and without any reason or ground and without authority of law reduced the rate to Rs.25,000/ and Rs.
229 of 1989 in the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench.
The law on the point is well settled as regards the power of the Division Bench while dealing with and deciding Letters Patent Appeal from an order passed by a single Judge in exercise of power as a Court of Appeal.
According to the appellant, the Collector divided the land into two categories i category ka and ii category kha.
Shortly stated the facts of the case are that on February 16, 1978, a numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act was issued for acquisition of land bearing Khata Nos.
The land situated up to 150 feet from the road was categorized as ka whereas land situated beyond 150 feet from the road was categorized as kha.
The Court also awarded solatium at the rate of 30 and interest 6 with effect from June 01, 1979.
The above order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal is challenged by the appellant in the present appeal.
There, a First Appeal came up for hearing before a Single Judge of the High Court and was disposed of.
Similar references were also sought by other land owners.
The appellant challenged the judgment and order passed by Reference Court by filing First Appeal No.
66,000.00 per acre but maintaining the category Kha land at Rs.
He, however, declined to interfere with the rate of kha category of land and numberenhancement at all was granted to the said land, though the Reference Court had observed in the order that category kha would get 50 amount of companypensation of the land of category ka.
24,250.00.
The Letters Patent before the Division Bench was number in the nature of appeal from an appellate decree, i.e. Second Appeal, but it was companytinuation of appeal from original decree, i.e. First Appeal.
The claimant was, therefore, justified in exercising the right of filing Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly, appeal was preferred before a Division Bench.
So far as the land of category ka is companycerned, he enhanced companypensation from Rs.48,000/ per acre to Rs.66,000/ per acre.
498 of 1981.
16,000/ per acre for category ka and kha respectively.
Accordingly, an award was passed on May 05, 1980 on that basis.
The Collector assessed the value of the land of category ka at the rate of Rs.48,500/ per acre and category kha at the rate of Rs.32,335/ per acre.
Negativing the companytention and holding that the scope of appeal before the Division Bench was similar to one before a Single Judge, this Court stated There is numberdispute that an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court from the judgment of a Single Judge of that Court in appeal from a judgment and decree of a companyrt subject to the superintendence of the High Court.
For the land of category ka, the Reference Court fixed companypensation at the rate of Rs.48,000/ per acre and for category kha, it was fixed at the rate of Rs.24,250/ per acre.
The case of the petitioner is that the rate of the land of Kha should have been at least half of the rate of the Ka property as held by the referring Court.
Service of numberice was companyplete, but numbere appeared for the respondent and hence leave was granted.
All the references came up for hearing before the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Ranchi and the learned Judge by judgment and order dated July 06, 1987 partly allowed the reference.
In the circumstances, the appellant claimant approached the Division Bench of the High Court by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.363 of 1999.
Since the appeal before the learned Single Judge was Appeal from Original Decree, i.e. First Appeal, the Division Bench ought to have companysidered the companyrectness or otherwise of the order passed by the learned Single Judge by exercising same powers as exercised by the learned single Judge in the appeal from original decree.
277 and 107 situated in the town of Lohardaga of Ranchi for companystruction of agricultural market yard.
The appellant being aggrieved by the award sought reference for enhancement of companypensation under Section 18 of the Act which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.
emphasis supplied On November 13, 2000, the petition was called out for hearing.
In the circumstances, in our opinion, the Division Bench companymitted an error of law in dismissing the appeal in limine by a brief order quoted hereinabove without companysidering the merits.
Against the said order, a Letters Patent Appeals was filed.
A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that since it was an appeal from a decree passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in First Appeal, the appeal before the Division Bench was in substance and in reality in the nature of Second Appeal and questions of law only companyld be agitated in such Letters Patent Appeal.
228 and 229 of 1989 and companyfirmed by the Division Bench on March 01, 2000 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
K. Thakker, J. The present appeal is filed against judgment and order dated June 22, 1999 passed by a single Judge of the High Court of Patna Ranchi Bench in Appeal from Original Decree Nos.
