1 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.278/2004 (Naru Vs. U.I.T. & Ors.) Date of Order : 12.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Sajjan Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Mankad, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the time of commencement of arguments, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that in view of judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 379, this revision petition is not even maintainable. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards para No.4 of the aforesaid judgment, which is as follows : “The appeal under Section 54 of the Act would not lie to this Court. A reading of Section 54 would clearly indicate that the appeal shall lie in any proceedings under the Act only to the High Court against the award and decree of the reference Court and further appeal to this Court would be under Article 136 of the Constitution read with Section 11 C.P.C. by way of special leave and not under Section 54 of the Act.” 2 I have perused the aforesaid judgment in which it is specifically held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that appeal would lie under Section 54 in any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act only before High Court. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may invoke the remedy available under the law. (Gopal Krishan Vyas), J. arun/