No Appeal Lies Against Execution Proceeding Order U/S 54 Land Acquisition Act 1894: Tripura HC
The Tripura High Court observed that no appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lies against execution proceeding order.
The bench of Justice Biswajit Patil observed, “Since the legislative mandate is very much clear that against the order of any execution proceeding, there is no scope to prefer any appeal so I do not find any scope to entertain the present appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court invoking Section 54 of the L.A. Act.”
CGC B. Majumder appeared for the appellant Senior Counsel D. K. Biswas appeared for the respondent.
Brief Facts-
The appellant Union of India contended that they were not made a party in the original L.A. case and were unaware of the award's passage. The appellant became aware of the matter during the execution proceedings and sought redress from the High Court. The High Court allowed the appellant to submit a reply in the execution proceedings. The appellant filed an objection before the Executing Court, but it was not allowed. Challenging that order, the appellant has filed the present appeal, seeking the High Court's intervention to set aside the Executing Court's order and related orders.
The Court perused Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and observed, “it is very much clear that there is no scope to prefer any appeal against any order specifically the order dated 25.01.2024 by the appellant as the appeal may only be preferred against the judgment/award not against any particular order/orders.”
The Court observed that the records from the Executing Court indicated that the appellant had appeared, was made a party, and had assured to settle the decretal payment within a specified period, which they failed to do. Subsequently, the appellant challenged it before the High Court, but the challenge was not allowed, and the Executing Court dismissed the objection on its merits.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as being devoid of merit as the same is not maintainable under Section 54 of the L.A. Act.
Cause Title: Union of India v. Anil Plantation Private Limited
Appearance:
Appellant: CGC B. Majumdar
Respondent: Sr. Adv. D. K. Biswas and Adv. D. S. Kunwar
