Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010144332024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./132/2024 In CRP/66/2024 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, IIT GUWAHATI, NORTH GUWAHATI IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781039. VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF KRISHNA CHANDRA BARUAH HIS LEGAL HEIRS TANUJA BARUAH AND ORS W/O- LATE DILIP CHANDRA BARUAH, R/O- VILL.- RAJADUAR, P.S. NORTH GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781030. 2:HRIDOYJIT BARUAH S/O- LATE DILIP CHANDRA BARUAH R/O- VILL.- RAJADUAR P.S. NORTH GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781030. (RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE WIFE AND SON OF LATE DILIP CHANDRA BARUAH ELDEST SON OF LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA BARUAH). 3:RATUL BARUAH S/O- LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA BARUAH R/O- VILL.- RAJADUAR P.S. NORTH GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781030. 4:MUKUT BARUAH S/O- LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA BARUAH R/O- VILL.- RAJADUAR P.S. NORTH GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781030. Page No.# 2/3 5:SAURAV BARUAH S/O- LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA BARUAH R/O- VILL.- RAJADUAR P.S. NORTH GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781030. 6:THE COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP AMINGAON, DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM, PIN- 781039 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P KAKOTI SR. ADV., MR A B DEY,MR. A K DUTTA,MR. S SUTRADHAR Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 10-03-2025 Heard Shri R. P. Kakoti, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A. K. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant, who has preferred this application praying for review of the order dated 21.06.2024 passed in CRP/66/2024. It is submitted that it is only a part of the award by which the applicant was arrayed as a party which was sought to be challenged. The aforesaid submission has been considered. For ready reference, the order in respect of which review has been sought is reproduced herein in below:- “ Heard Shri AK Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a common judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in Reference Case No. 83/2016 and Reference Case No. 84/2016. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 was passed by the learned Court below as a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act). The Act provides for preferring an appeal under Section 54 and when the statute itself provides for an appeal, a revision is not maintainable. The revision petition is accordingly held to be not maintainable and therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to prefer appeal in accordance with law. The Registry is directed to return the certified copies annexed to this revision petition so as Page No.# 3/3 to enable the parties to prefer appeal, if so advised.” The application which was registered as CRP/66/2024 was preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge in two reference cases which were made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Act itself specifically provides for appeal in the form of Section 54 which reads as follows:- “54. Appeals in proceedings before Court. - Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 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 lie 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.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs Francis Victor Continho reported in 1980 (3) SCC 223 has clearly laid down the right of preferring an appeal even to a party for whose benefit the land has been acquired and following the said decision a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Paper Corporation Vs Sohan Lal Pugalia reported in 1993 (1) GLR 267 has also reiterated the said proposition. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no case for review of the aforesaid order is made out and accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant