The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an appeal against a decree passed by the Reference Court in proceedings under Sections 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable only under Section 54 of the Act and not under Section 96 CPC. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 196]

For context, Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act provides the statutory right of appeal against proceedings of the Court under the Act, whereas Section 96 CPC provides the general remedy of a first appeal from an original decree.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta in a Land Acquisition Appeal where the maintainability of the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act arose for consideration, following a Section 30 reference made by the Special Deputy Collector.

The Court observed:

"Insofar as an award or any part of an award made in proceedings under the L.A. Act is concerned, the Legislature has specifically provided the remedy under Sections 18 and 30 of the L.A. Act. Had it been the intention of the Legislature that decrees passed by the Reference Court under Section 30 should be appealable under Section 96 of C.P.C., there would have been no necessity to enact a special appellate provision under Section 54 of the L.A. Act. The very incorporation of Section 54 demonstrates the legislative intent that appeals arising from adjudications made in proceedings under the Act should be governed exclusively by the special provision.

While we agree that the adjudication under Sections 18 and 30 amounts to a decree, in view of Section 26 of the L.A. Act, we are of the considered opinion that the appellate remedy against such decree is governed by the special provision contained in Section 54 of the L.A. Act and not by the general provision under Section 96 of C.P.C."

The appellant challenged the order and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge in a land acquisition dispute concerning apportionment of compensation, arising from a Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act reference made by the Special Deputy Collector regarding the persons entitled to the compensation awarded for the acquired land.

At the stage of numbering the appeal, the Registry raised an objection regarding its maintainability under Section 54. A Coordinate Bench thereafter directed registration of the appeal while leaving the question of maintainability open for final adjudication.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, contending that the impugned order was a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and that an appeal would therefore lie under Section 96 CPC. It was also argued that Section 54 applies only to an award or part of an award, whereas the impugned order arose from a Section 30 reference concerning apportionment of compensation.

Rejecting the objection, the High Court held that a Section 30 reference stands on the same footing as a Section 18 reference, as both are statutory references made by the Collector to the Reference Court. While Section 18 applies where a person interested disputes the award, Section 30 applies where a dispute arises regarding apportionment of compensation or the persons to whom it is payable.

The Bench further explained that under Section 26(2) of the L.A. Act, the award made by the Court is deemed to be a decree and the statement of its grounds a judgment within the meaning of the C.P.C.. However, the appellate remedy against such decree is governed by the special provision under Section 54 and not Section 96 CPC.

The Court held that “proceedings” in Section 54 include adjudication on references under Sections 18 and 30, with Section 54 providing the right of appeal and the CPC governing only its procedure.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the maintainability objection, holding that appeals against Reference Court decrees under Sections 18 or 30 lie under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and not Section 96 CPC.

The matter would now be heard on merits.

Case Title: P. Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector & Anr.

Case No.: L.A.A.S. No. 10 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 196

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.K. Raj Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Sri M. Venkata Ramana Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order