M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. K.R Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Singh. JC to AAG. Since a pure question of law with regard to jurisdictional error of the Court has been raised by the petitioners, the writ application is disposed of with the consent to" the counsels for the parties at the admission stage.
(2.) IN this writ application, petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District Judge. Seraikella in Land Acquisition Title Appeal No. 48/95 is a nullity, being wholly without Jurisdiction and further prayed for permitting the petitioners to file fresh appeal before the appropriate forum under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. Petitioners case is that the land in question was acquired for Swarnarekha Dam Project of Chandil under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the collector, under the land acquisition proceeding, awarded compensation in the name of Sri Bhagwati Prasad Jalan respondent No. 6. It is contended that the petitioners, on coming to know about the fraudulent act of respondent No. 6 in getting the said award prepared in his name on false representation of fact, filed a petition on 4.10.1986 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer for cancelling the award. The Special Land Acquisition Officer referred the said objection to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act. The said objection was registered as L.A. Case No. 4 (3)/88. In the said proceeding respondent No. 6 appeared and filed show -cause and after hearing the parties the learned Land Acquisition Officer, by order dated 20.11.1995 confirmed the award. Against the said award the petitioner preferred appeal before the District Judge. Singhbhum which was registered as Title Appeal No. 48/95. The said appeal was heard by the Addl. District Judge, Seraikella who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the award.
(3.) MR . Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the Addl. District Judge as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that Section 54 of the Act being mandatory provision, the appellate court has committed serious errors of jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that besides errors of jurisdiction the lower appellate court has also committed error of law and the finding recorded by it is based on no evidence.;