- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mathai Thomas v. Vasudevan Pillai Viswanathan Pillai
Factual and Procedural Background
Two appeals (A.S. No. 42 of 1960 and A.S. No. 43 of 1960) arise from decrees and judgments of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mavelikara in L.A.R. Nos. 21/58 and 23/58 respectively. The appellants challenged those decrees on the ground that the subordinate judge declined to recognise any title or interest in the appellants entitling them to a share of compensation awarded under the Travancore Land Acquisition Act (XI of 1089).
Because of disputes as to title and the right to receive the compensation amount, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference to the civil court under section 27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act. The appeals before this court raise a preliminary objection on maintainability, and the court was asked to determine whether the decisions of the civil court on such references are decrees appealable to this court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a decision rendered by a civil court on a reference made under section 27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act (corresponding to section 30 of the Central Act) constitutes a decree and is therefore appealable to the High Court.
- Whether the appeals as filed to this court in these matters are maintainable in the present forum, having regard to the nature of the decision and the subject‑matter value (noted as being less than Rs. 10,000).
- Whether, after a civil court decides the apportionment on a reference under section 27, any further award by the Land Acquisition Officer is required before the decision can operate.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Mr. Cyrus, learned counsel)
- Relied on decisions of other High Courts and the Privy Council (including Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao) to contend that a decision by a civil court on a reference under the central act's section 30 (corresponding to Travancore section 27) is, although not an "award" under provisions dealing with awards, nevertheless a decree of the civil court and is appealable to the appellate authority/High Court.
- Submitted that authorities such as Raghunathdas v. District Superintendent of Police; Chikhanna v. Perumal; Hanumanthappa v. K. Sivalingappa; and Venkata Reddi v. Adhinarayana Rao support the proposition that such decisions are decrees and appealable.
Respondent's Arguments (Mr. S. Neelakanta Iyer, learned counsel)
- Raised a preliminary objection to maintainability, relying on a decision by Joseph, J., in Kesava Pillai v. Uzhuthiraru (1964 KLT 643), which held that a decision rendered by a civil court on a reference under section 27 of the Travancore Act is not an award and that, under identical circumstances, no appeal is maintainable to the High Court.
- Contended that the decision on reference is not a decree and therefore no appeal lies to this court unless the matter falls under the corresponding appeal provision (section 54) in the Indian Act.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kesava Pillai v. Uzhuthiraru (1964 KLT 643) (Joseph, J.) | Held that a decision by a civil court on a reference under s.27 (Travancore Act) is not an award and that no appeal is maintainable to the High Court under such circumstances. | The bench declined to follow Joseph, J.'s broader conclusion that no appeal lies; the court overruled this objection and held that the earlier decision was not persuasive on the point that such decisions are not decrees. |
| Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao (ILR 45 Madras 320) (Privy Council) | Established that a civil court decision on a reference under the central act's s.30, though not an "award" under the awards provisions, is nevertheless a decree of the civil court and appealable to the appellate authority. | The court relied on this authority (and those that followed it) to support its conclusion that decisions on references concerning apportionment are decrees and thus appealable under preserved rights in s.54 of the central act. |
| Raghunathdas v. District Superintendent of Police (AIR 1933 Bombay 187) | One of the High Court decisions cited for the proposition that decisions on references under the corresponding central act provision are to be treated as decrees and appealable. | The court cited this as part of a line of authorities backing the view that decisions on apportionment references are decrees and appealable. |
| Chikhanna v. Perumal (AIR 1940 Madras 474) | Another High Court decision cited for the same principle regarding appealability of court decisions on references under the central act. | The decision was referred to as supporting authority for holding such decisions to be decrees appealable to the appellate authority. |
| Hanumanthappa v. K. Sivalingappa (AIR 1960 Mysore 139) | Cited among authorities holding that a civil court decision on a reference under the central act is a decree and appealable. | Used to reinforce the court's conclusion that an appeal lies against the civil court decision on apportionment. |
| Venkata Reddi v. Adhinarayana Rao (56 M.L.J. 357) | Referred to as another supporting authority in the chain of decisions treating the court's decision on reference as a decree. | Relied upon to support the view that the decision on reference is appealable despite not being an "award" under the awards provisions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by first observing that the provisions of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act are substantially in accordance with the scheme of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The specific issue raised by the respondent's preliminary objection turned on whether a civil court decision on a reference under section 27 of the Travancore Act (corresponding to section 30 of the Central Act) is a decree and therefore appealable to the High Court.
The court analysed the statutory scheme: under the Central Act s.11 the award by the Land Acquisition Officer includes apportionment among persons interested, but part IV contains s.30 specifically providing that disputes about apportionment, after compensation is settled, may be referred by the Collector to the court. The court contrasted provisions in Part III of the Central Act (s.26) where awards on references are expressly treated as awards and deemed decrees under sub‑section (2), with the separate treatment of apportionment disputes in Part IV (s.30).
Turning to s.54 of the Central Act (appeals), the court noted that s.54 begins by preserving the rights of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure (appeals from original decrees) and then provides an appeal to the High Court from an award or part of an award. The court emphasised that the earlier portion of s.54 expressly preserves the right of appeal available under the Code against original decrees.
Applying those statutory provisions and the line of authorities (including the Privy Council decision and various High Court decisions), the court concluded that a decision by a civil court on a reference under s.27/ s.30—particularly where title and the manner of apportionment are determined—constitutes a decree of the civil court and is appealable. Consequently, the court overruled the Joseph, J. decision to the extent it held that no appeal lies against such decisions.
The court also rejected the view (attributed to Joseph, J.) that after the civil court's decision the answer must be communicated to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a final award. The bench found no provision in the Travancore Act or the Central Act requiring any further award; once the compensation is fixed by the Collector, the court's function is to apportion and the directed apportionment should be carried out by the authorities concerned without a separate further award.
Finally, the court declined to enter into the merits of the appeals. Although the court accepted that the decisions on reference are appealable, it held that the appeals presented to this court could not be sustained in the present forum given the circumstances (including that the subject matter of dispute was less than Rs. 10,000) and therefore dismissed the appeals on that short ground. The court granted a procedural direction permitting the appellants to take back their appeal memoranda and re-present them before the appropriate appellate authority after satisfying that authority as to the reasons for delay, noting that the doubt about appealability justified the appellants seeking relief in this court initially.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Both appeals are DISMISSED.
The court's dispositive rulings are:
- The court held that a decision rendered by a civil court on a reference under section 27 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act (corresponding to section 30 of the Central Act) does amount to a decree and is appealable; the preliminary objection that no appeal lies was overruled.
- Despite that conclusion on appealability, the appeals as presented to this court could not be sustained in the present forum and were dismissed on the short ground that the subject‑matter of dispute was less than Rs. 10,000.
- The court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the underlying apportionment disputes.
Practical consequences and directions:
- The appellants are permitted to take a return of their appeal memoranda and re‑present them before the appropriate appellate authority after satisfying that authority as to the reasons for any delay in filing; the appropriate appellate court is invited to take into account that the question of appealability was not free from doubt.
- There will be no order as to costs beyond the parties bearing their own costs.
Note: The court did not decide the substantive merits of entitlement to share of compensation; it confined its decision to questions of appealability and procedural disposition.
1. In both these appeals, Mr. Cyrus, Learned counsel for the appellants, Challenges the decrees and judgments of the learned subordinate judge of mavelikara in l. A. R. Nos. 21/58 and 23/58 respectively, Declining to recognise any title or interest in the respective appellants so as to entitle them to claim a share in the compensation amount awarded in proceedings taken under the provisions of the travancore land acquisition act (xi of 1089).
2. A. S. No. 42 of 1960 arises out of the decision rendered by the learned subordinate judge in l. A. R. No. 21/58, And the 5th defendant therein is the appellant. Similarly, A. S. 43/60 arises out of the decree and judgment of the learned judge rendered in l. A. R. No. 23/58, And the 2nd defendant therein is the appellant.
3. In view of the dispute that appears to have been raised regarding the title to the properties as well as the right to receive the compensation amount, There was a reference made by the concerned land acquisition officer under s. 27 of the travancore land acquisition act. There is no controversy before us between learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Namely mr. Cyrus, And learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Namely mr. S. Neelakanta iyer, That the provisions contained in the travancore land acquisition act are substantially in accordance with the scheme of the land acquisition act, 1894 (central act i of 1894). We are referring particularly to this aspect, Because a preliminary objection has been raised by mr. Neelakanta iyer, Learned counsel for the respondent, Regarding the maintainability of these two appeals in this court. According to the learned counsel, The question of considering the title of the persons to receive the compensation amount and the proportion in which the compensation amount is to be distributed was necessitated by reference being made to the court by the land acquisition officer under s. 27 of the travancore land acquisition act. The learned counsel, Relying upon a decision of our learned brother joseph, J., Reported in kesava pillai v. Uzhuthiraru 1964 klt. 643, Urged that in that decision the learned judge has taken the view that under identical circumstances, When a decision is rendered by a court on reference being made under s. 27 of the travancore land acquisition act, No appeal is maintainable at all. That is in short, The contention of the learned counsel is that the decision rendered by the learned subordinate judge is not a decree, And therefore no appeal lies to this court unless the matter comes under the corresponding provision in the indian act, Namely s. 54. No doubt, Joseph, J., Has taken the view that a decision rendered by a civil court, On a reference being made regarding the apportionment of compensation, Under s. 27 of the travancore act, Is not an award. If we may say so with respect, To that extent we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the learned judge. But the learned judge has gone further and held that no appeal lies as against such decision rendered by the civil court.
4. Mr. Cyrus learned counsel for the appellant, Has drawn our attention to a number of decisions of the other high courts including a decision of the privy council reported in ramachandra rao v. Ramachandra rao (ilr. 45 madras 320), Wherein it has been unanimously held that a decision rendered by a civil court on a reference being made to it under s. 30 of the central act (corresponding to s. 27 of the travancore act), Though not an award, And made specifically appealable under s. 54 of the act, Is nevertheless a decree rendered by the civil court and is appealable as such to the appellate authority. Those decisions are raghunathdas v. District superintendent of police (air. 1933 bombay 187), Chikhanna v. Perumal (air. 1940 madras 474), Hanumanthappa v. K. Sivalingappa (air. 1960 mysore 139) &venkata reddi v. Adhinarayana rao (56 m. L. J. 357) wherein reference has been made to the decision of the privy council in ramachandra rao v. Ramachandra rao (ilr. 45 madras 320). No doubt it will be seen that under s. 11 of the central act, Among the various matters which are to be contained in an award to be passed by the land acquisition officer, Provision is made to the effect that one of the items to be so dealt with is regarding the apportionment of the compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. But notwithstanding that, There is another specific provision contained in s. 30, Which occurs in part iv of the act, Regarding dispute about the apportionment of the compensation. S. 30 of the central act which corresponds to s. 27 of the travancore act, Provides that when the amount of compensation has been settled under s. 11, If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, Or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, Is payable, The collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the court.
5. In this case there is no controversy that the collector, In the award passed by him, Has fixed the compensation regarding the properties acquired as such. But so far as the apportionment of the same is concerned as between the various claimants, The collector has made a reference under s. 27 of the travancore land acquisition act. S. 54 of the central act, Providing for appeals, Starts by saying "subject to the provisions of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Applicable to appeal from original decrees, And notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force. " and provides for an appeal being maintainable against any proceedings under the act, Only to the high court from the award or from any part of the award; and from any decree of the high court passed on such appeal provision is made for further appeal to the supreme court. Pausing here, It may be stated that under s. 26 of the act, The decision that is rendered by the civil court on reference made to it under s. 18 of the act, Is no doubt styled as an award; and under sub - section (2) of s. 26 it is also provided that the award shall be deemed to be a decree, And the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of s. 2, Clause (2) and s. 2, Clause (9) respectively of the civil procedure code, 1908. It will be seen that s. 26 forms part of part iii of the act which relates to reference to court and procedure thereon, Whereas, S. 30, As we have already indicated, Occurs in part iv relating to apportionment of compensation. The latter part of s. 54 no doubt specifically states that notwithstanding that it is an award passed by a court, A right of appeal is given to the high court against such an award that is passed; but in the earlier part of s. 54, As we have already stated the right of appeal which the party will have as against the original decree under the code of civil procedure is specifically preserved. In all the decisions that have been referred to by mr. Cyrus, Learned "counsel for the appellant, The question that arose was to whether a decision rendered by a civil court on reference made to it under s. 30 of the central act is a decree or not. Admittedly it is not an award because it does not come under s. 26 of the act. But surely, In our opinion, It does constitute a decree rendered by the civil court, More especially when the title of the parties regarding the manner in which apportionment of the compensation is to be made arises for consideration. If that is so, In our view, Apart from there being nothing in the statute itself which prohibits a right of appeal, In fact the earlier part of s. 54 of the central act, As we have already pointed out, Clearly preserves a right of appeal against such a decision as a decree passed by a civil court. Therefore, The preliminary objection raised by mr. S. Neelakanta iyer, Learned counsel for the respondent, Based upon the decision of joseph, J., Referred to earlier, Will have to be - overruled; and to this extent we must indicate that we are not inclined to accept the view of joseph, J., When the learned judge holds that when a decision is rendered by a civil court on reference made to it under s. 27 of the travancore act, Corresponding to s. 30 of the central act, It does not amount to a decree. Nor do we with respect, Agree with the learned judge when he holds that after a decision is rendered by the court, The answer will have to be communicated to the land acquisition officer to pass a final award. We do not see any provision in the travancore act or in the central act to that effect. Inasmuch as the compensation for the land has been fixed by the collector, The function of the court is only to apportion the compensation and any apportionment that is directed will have to be carried out by the authorities concerned. There is no question of a further award being passed.
6. Then the question is whether the appellant is entitled to any relief. We do not propose to go into the merits arising for decision in these appeals, Because we have already indicated that on the basis that the appellant has got a right of appeal to challenge a decision rendered by a civil court, Treating it as a decree, That appeal must be presented to the proper forum. In this case the decision was rendered by the learned subordinate judge; and however regrettable the final result may be, We have to hold that the appeals filed by the appellant to this court cannot certainly be sustained, Especially as it is pointed out that the subject - matter of dispute is less than rs. 10,000. Therefore, The appeals will have to be dismissed on that short ground without expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits arising for decision. But there will be a direction to the effect that it is open to the appellant, If so advised, To take a return of the appeal memoranda and re - present the same before the appropriate appellate authority, After satisfying that authority regarding the reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. That court, We dare say, Will take into account all those circumstances and especially the fact that the question as to whether persons like the present appellants, Have got a right of appeal in respect of decisions rendered by the civil court on reference made to it under s. 27 of the travancore act, Was not free from doubt and therefore the appellant had some justification to come to this court seeking relief.
7. Subject to these directions and observations, Both the appeals are dismissed, And parties will bear their own costs. Dismissed.
Alert