S. Awasthy, J. - (1.) The Collector, Raipur, made a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in regard to the compensation award made by him on 4-3-73 in land acquisition case No. 34-A-82/72-73 (State v. Sakharam and Ors.) to the court of District Judge, Raipur. The matter was heard by the III Addl. District Judge, Raipur, in M.J.C. (Land Acquisition) No. 12/74. He passed the order on 31-10-75 and enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 815/- per acre to Rs. 5000/- per acre. Against the said order an appeal u/s 54 was preferred to the High Court which was registered as First Appeal No. 24/76. Sakharam alone was the respondent in that appeal. The appeal was valued at Rs. 6311-25 P. During the pendency of the said appeal, vide order dated 30-11-81 Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C.Varma passed an order stating that the sole respondent in the appeal had died about 3 years back but no steps were taken by the appellant-State to bring the legal representatives on record. Thus, the appeal stood abaited and was dismissed accordingly.
(2.) An application was filed on 5-12-61 by the counsel for the State stating therein that the provisions under Order 22 of the C.P.C. are not applicable to the land acquisition proceedings and there could not be any abatement of the appeal for not bringing the legal representatives of the sole respondents on record. A prayer was made that the abatement order be set aside and the appeal be heard on merits. With the said application there was another application purported to be under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. giving the names of the legal representatives of late Sakbaram. The said application was admitted on 5-3-64. On 20-4-64 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Faizan Uddin mentioned in the order sheet that "it is a settled view of this court that the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil procedure and the limitations prescribed for making an application bringing the L.Rs. on record or for setting aside the abatement did not apply as the provisions of Order 22 of the Code are altogether inconsistent with the very nature and scope of the proceedings u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In this view of the matter, the question of abatement of the appeal did not arise."
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision reported in Abdul Karim v. State of M.P., 1964 MPLJ 279 and also a case reported in B. Munda v. D. Oraon, AIR 1970 Pat. 209.. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied on A. Abbasbhai v. Collector, Panch Mahals, AIR 1962 SC 89.. In the former case 1964 M.P.L.J. page 729 was dissented and it was held that Order 22 of the C P.C. applies to such proceedings. In my opinion, this question is of a great public importance and needs to be determined by a Division Bench of this High Court which may consider in the context of the aforesaid decisions if Order 22 is applicable to the appeals u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The case is, therefore, referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for passing an appropriate order in view of the aforesaid submission.;