JUDGMENT
V.M. Kanade, J.
1. This is a second appeal filed by the original non-applicant Collector, Wardha challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Wardha who allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and directed the appellant to pay additional compensation of Rs.23,654/- with future interest at the rate of 9 % per annum.
2. Brief facts are as follows : That, the applicants land kh.no.105/2, admeasuring 10.49 acres, situated at village Masod, Tahsil-Arvi, District-Wardha had been acquired for the public purpose by the Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division, Wardha for the construction of Dham Irrigation Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award granting compensation to the applicant to the tune of Rs.10,677.39 and Award was published on 28th March, 1978. The appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Court and sought enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/-. This reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, who vide judgment and order dated 20th February, 1985, dismissed the said application.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Wardha. The Additional District Judge, Wardha by judgment and order dated 27th October, 1989 set aside the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha and granted additional compensation to him. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Collector, Wardha has preferred the second appeal. The substantial question of law which is raised in this second appeal is as to whether the Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal against the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, who had passed the said order under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4.I have heard learned counsel AGP appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, deals with the appeals in proceeding before the Court. Section 54 reads as follows :
” Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only be in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to (the Supreme Court) subject to the provisions contained in section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in Order XLV thereof.”
From the perusal of the said section, it is apparent that an appeal against the order passed under the proceedings under the Act shall only be filed to the High Court. The wording of the said section is very clear and it does not leave any room for about. When the section itself specifically provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court, the lower appellate court could not have exercised its appellate jurisdiction and decide the said appeal.
5. It is a settled position in law that an appeal is a creation of the statute and if the statute provides that an appeal shall lie before a particular forum, then no discretion is left but to file the appeal before the said forum. The District Court, therefore, exercised jurisdiction not vested in law and the said appeal ought to have been filed before the High Court. The finding of the District Court that in view of the provisions of Bombay Civil Court Act, 1869 and the amendment of Section 26 of the said Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court was enhanced and, therefore, the appeal from a decision of Civil Judge would lie to the District Court and not to the High Court. Section 8 of the Bombay Civil Court Act, 1869 reads as follows :
“Except as provided in sections 16,17 and 26, the District Court shall be the Court of Appeal from all decrees and orders passed by the subordinate Courts from which an appeal lies under any law for the time being in force.”
Section 26 of the said Act deals with the pecuniary jurisdiction. Section 26 has been amended and the pecuniary jurisdiction was increased to Rs.50,000/-. However, the provisions of this Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as specific provision is made in the Land Acquisition Act, in which it is specifically laid down that an appeal shall lie to the High Court. In view of the specific provisions, even though the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court has been increased by virtue of amendment of Section 26 of the said Act, the District Court could not have entertained the appeal, in view of the specific bar as provided under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said finding of the lower appellate court will have to be set aside.
6. In this view of the matter, the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate court is set aside. It is made clear, however, that the appellant would be at liberty to file an appeal against the order passed by the trial Court to the High Court subject to the question of limitation. Second Appeal is, therefore, allowed in the above terms. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.