An intra-court bench should not depart from a Single Judge’s findings without cogent reasons.

Land was acquired for road construction, and the appellant claimed entitlement to compensation.

He alleged that compensation had wrongly been disbursed to his mother and brother, with whom he had a pending civil title suit concerning ancestral property that included the acquired land.

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, observing that he could submit a fresh representation to the District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO).

The appellant challenged that dismissal in this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition concerning the alleged disbursement of compensation to the appellant’s mother and brother.

2. Whether the appellant established a basis for the Division Bench to interfere with the Single Judge’s order in an intra-court appeal.

In an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench may reappraise questions of fact and law, but ordinarily should not differ from the Single Judge’s findings unless cogent reasons exist; entertaining a Letters Patent Appeal is discretionary.

The Court relied on B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh, (2006) 13 SCC 449, which reproduces this principle from Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan, (2005) 6 SCC 243.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision as governing the dispute.

The Court found that the authorities had disbursed compensation and that the appellant had himself received part of it.

Although he claimed entitlement to additional compensation and disputed the amounts paid to his mother and brother, he produced no substantive material establishing that entitlement.

In the absence of such material or other cogent reason to depart from the Single Judge’s findings, the Division Bench found no basis for interference.

It clarified that the appellant remained at liberty to approach the competent authority for redress of any grievance.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.