' The land of the respondents objectors was acquired through awards No,34 and 35 dated 7-7-1982 for construction of the Office and Residence of Police Officers by appellant No,2 for appellant No,1.
The respondents were not satisfied with the assessment of compensation worked out in the award of the Collector, therefore, their objection petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, acting as Acquisition Judge. The objection was received in the latter Court on 7-2-1983 and process was issued against the respondents-appellants for 19- 3-1983. In spite of service none of the respondents put in appearance and as such were placed ex parte and the case was fixed for recording ex parte evidence of the objectors on 19-5-1983. In the meantime some evidence of the objectors was recorded when almost about two years after, on 14-2-1985 the respondents applied for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. This application was fixed for evidence on 2-7-1985 but no evidence was produced on this date and the case was adjourned for this purpose to 2-7-1985. However, on this date too no witness was produced and 23- 9-1985 was fixed as the next date for evidence. On this date also the appellants failed to procure the attendance of their witnesses and requested for adjournment to produce evidence. This adjournment was allowed at their instance and they were directed to produce evidence on 14-10- 1985, But on this date neither the appellants appeared in Court nor produced evidence and accordingly the learned Court closed their evidence in terms of Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. Thereafter, on 2-12-1985 they submitted the present application under section 151, C.P.C. For setting aside the order dated 14-10-1985. This application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 22-7-1989 as incompetent because according to the learned Judge the remedy provided against the impugned order was either by way of appeal or review and not through an application under section 151, C.P.C. The appellants have, therefore, assailed the order dated 22-7-1989 in this appeal.
2. At the hearing a preliminary point regarding the competency of the appeal was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It was submitted that under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, an appeal shall only lie from the award or any part of the award but as the impugned order does not amount to an award, therefore, no appeal will be competent against it. The learned Assistant Advocate-General while controverting the preliminary objection argued that section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act has made the Civil Procedure Code applicable to proceedings under the former Act, therefore, under the relevant provision of the said Code such an appeal would be competent.
3. We considered this point in the light of the relevant law.
4. Under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, an appeal is competent from the award or from any part of it. It is conceded that the term award has not been defined in the Act. However, its ambit and import can be determined by reference to section 26 of the Act wherein form of an award has been explained. According to this section an award must be in writing and it shall specify the amount under any of the clauses of section 23 and must be backed by reasons for awarding the amount. In other words it must have some nexus with the compensation in some form either with the amount or with the disposal of the compensation. The impugned order does not deal with the determination either of quantum or apportionment of the compensation and, therefore, cannot be termed as award or part of the award. Right of appeal can be availed of only when it is bestowed upon a litigant by the Statute itself and, therefore, section 53 cannot be stretched to the extent to make all the provisions of the C.P.C. Relating to appeal applicable to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, section 54 being of specific nature would prevail over section 53 which is of general character. It is thus obvious that the impugned order is not appealable and the instant appeal being incompetent is liable to dismissal on this score. However, even if an appeal is held to be competent even then the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality as it has been correctly pointed out that the remedy of the appellants was either in appeal or through a revision petition and not through an application under section 151, C.P.C.
5. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as incompetent, with no order as to costs.