Allahabad High Court
K.U.M.S.versusSUMSUDDIN AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is dismissed because its valuation is below the Rs. 2 lakh limit prescribed by the State Litigation Policy.
Summary
The appellant, a State functionary, filed a first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging an award and decree in a land acquisition case. The appeal was valued at Rs. 1,57,531, which is below the Rs. 2 lakh threshold set by the State Government's amended litigation policy dated 13‑10‑2016. The policy directs that first appeals in land acquisition matters below this monetary limit shall not be filed and any already filed must be withdrawn. The High Court, applying this policy, dismissed the appeal without addressing its merits. The court also allowed the State Government to file a recall application if needed and vacated any interim orders. All pending applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be dismissed solely on the ground that its monetary valuation is below Rs. 2 lakh as per the State Litigation Policy.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 54
Subjects
- land acquisition
- appeal
- valuation limit
- state litigation policy
- Section 54
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL No. - 888 of 1992
K.U.M.S.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Sumsuddin And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : S.C. Mandhayan, Satish Mandhayan,
Suresh C. Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : R.K. Jain
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. None present.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 by the appellant, a State functionary, challenging
the impugned award and decree dated 19.02.1992 passed by the Court of
VIth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, in L.A.R. No. 80 of 1987,
Smt. Naseema Begum (Deceased) through LRs and others vs. Collector,
Saharanpur.
3. By policy decision dated 13.10.2016, the State Government has amended
its State Litigation Policy by inserting para 4(ff) whereby it has been
provided that first appeals in land acquisition matters below monetary limit
of Rs.2 lacs, shall not be filed and the first appeals which have already been
filed below the aforesaid monetary limit, shall be withdrawn.
4. On a perusal of the memo of the appeal, it appears that the appeal has
been valued at Rs. 1,57,531/-, which is below Rs. 2 lacs.
5. In this regard, the Government Order dated 13.10.2016, which is relevant,
is quoted below:-
"भू-अधिग्रहण सम्बन्धित ऐसे मुकदमों में मा0 उच्च न्यायालय स्तर पर कोई अपील दायर नहीं की जायेगी,
जिनमें शासन की देयता रू0 2;00 लाख (रूपया दो लाख) से कम है। भू-अधिग्रहण सम्बन्धी ऐसी सभी
अपीलें जो मा० उच्च न्यायालय में लम्बित है तथा जिसमें देयता रू0 2;00 लाख (रूपया दो लाख) से कम है,
को मा० उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष आवेदन देकर वापस ले लिया जाएगा। उपरोक्त के सम्बन्ध में यह प्रतिबन्ध
FAPL No. 888 of 1992
2
रहेगा कि यदि किसी संदर्भ में पारित आदेश शासन की नीति के खिलाफ हो या धोखा देकर/झूठ बोलकर/तथ्यों
को छिपाकर/कपट पूर्वक प्राप्त किया गया हो अथवा उक्त आदेश त्रुटिपूर्ण दृष्टान्त (प्रिसीडेन्स) बन रहा हो
अथवा उक्त आदेश से प्रतिकर की दरें निर्धारित होती हो, तो न्याय विभाग का परामर्श प्राप्त कर अपील की
जायेगी। यदि छोटे मामलों में मूल्यांकन कम होने पर अपील नहीं की गयी है तो उसको बड़े मामलों के लिये
दृष्टान्त (प्रिसीडेन्स) नहीं माना जायेगा और नियमानुसार अपील दायर की जायेगी।"
6. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is also dismissed without expressing
any opinion on merits of the case.
7. However, dismissal of this appeal shall not come in the way of the State
Government to contest appeal of higher valuation as provided in the policy
decision dated 13.10.2016. Liberty is also granted to the State Government
to file a recall application for recall of this order of dismissal of appeal on
the ground of smallness of valuation, in case any technical objection is
raised by other claimants for dismissal of some other appeal of higher
valuation filed by the State Government and arising from the same
acquisition.
8. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
February 13, 2026
Mayank
Digitally signed by :-
MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…