1. This is an Appeal on behalf of the landlord, in aproceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, for apportionment of thecompensation money awarded. The Respondent claims a part of the compensation astenant of the land acquired. The Court below has found on the evidence that heis a purchaser of a non-transferable holding and that consequently the interesthe claims to hold has no market value. In this view of the matter he would notbe entitled to any portion of the compensation money. As a matter of fact,however, the Collector made an award in his favour and he managed to withdrawthe money before the landlord could make an application for a reference undersec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court below has held that as the moneyhas already been paid out by the Collector, no reference was permissible undersec. 18, as the Judge had no jurisdiction to compel the Respondent to bringback into Court the money paid out to him. The substantial question incontroversy in this Appeal is whether this view is well-founded on reason andprinciple. It appears that on the 16th January 1907 the Appellant presented apetition to the Collector in which he alleged that he was the talukdar of thisland and was in possession thereof: The Respondent does not appear to havepresented any petition to the Collector, at any rate, none is to be found on thepresent record. The Collector thereupon made an order, awarding a part of thecompensation money to the Appellant and the remainder to the Respondent. On the14th August 19071 notice of this order was served upon the landlord as alsoupon the so-called tenant. On that very date, the latter made an applicationthat the money might bad paid out to him and on the next day an order wasrecorded by the Collect or to the following effect: " pay, if noobjection." The money was paid out to him on that very day. The landlordpresented a similar petition on the 15th August, and the money was received byhim under protest. On the 24th September 1907, the landlord made an applicationunder sec. 18 for a reference to the Civil Court. In this application heexplicitly stated that the present Respondent had no interest in the land andno portion of the compensation money ought to have been awarded to him by theCollector: he also objected to the valuation. The question is, whether the factthat the money had been paid out was a bar to the reference, though it is clearupon the facts stated, that the money should not have been paid out to theRespondent.

2. Sec. 31 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act provides thatwhen an award has been made by the Collector under sec. 11 he shall tender thecompensation awarded by him to the persons interested thereto according to theaward and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of thecontingencies mentioned in the following sub section : sub-sec. (2) thenprovides, amongst other things, that if there be any dispute as to the title toreceive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shalldeposit the amount in the Court to which reference under sec. 18 will besubmitted. In the present case, it: is manifest on the face of the record thatthere was a dispute as to the little of the present Respondent to receive thecompensation; or, to put it in another way, as to the apportionment of thetotal compensate ion between the landlord and the tenant. By an oversight, wemay take it, on the part of the officers in the Collector, the money was paidout to the Respondent. Can it be suggested under these circumstances that thejurisdiction of the Court 10 entertain a reference under sec. 18 has beenousted If this view were to prevail, the jurisdiction of the Court under sec.18 might be ousted wherever one of the parties managed to ob and payment of thecompensation money awarded by the Collector. But it has been contended that theAppellant is not without a remedy and that it is open to him to institute asuit in the Civil Court under the last proviso to sub sec. 2 of sec. 31.Assuming, however, that the Appellant may have recourse to a suit, there is noreason why 1 he jurisdiction of the Special Court provided by the Legislaturefor the adjudication of questions of appointment should be ousted, merelybecause the Respondent has managed to receive payment of the compensationmoney. Such a result could never have been contemplated by the Legislature. Inthe evens which have happened, the Court has clearly in he rent power to recallthe money improperly paid out, Mtinalihit v. Abinash It C. L J. 583 (1910:Arabian Kali v. Banalata I. L. R. 32 Cal 921 (1095), and even the decision inGobinda Ranee v. Brenda Ranee I. L. R. 86 Cal. 1104 (1908) would not tolerateecru se to a device deliberately taken to oust the jurisdiction of a Court. Theview adopted by the learned Judge cannot consequently be supported. The resultis that this Appeal is allowed, and the order of the lower Court set aside. Wecaret the Respondent to bring back into Court the money which he has taken outfrom the Collectorate, together with interest thereon, at the rate of six percent, per annum from the 24th September 1907 (the date when the Appellant madean application under sec. 18) to the date when the money is deposited in Court.As soon as the money is deposited it will be paid out to the Appellant. If theRespondent does not deposit the amount within three months from this date, theAppellant will be entitled to recover the amount in execution of the decree ofthis Court. The Appellant is entitled to his costs of these proceedings bothhere and below. We assess the hearing-fee in this Court at five gold mohurs.The order of the Court below in so far as it relates to the costs of theSecretary of State for India in Council, will and, but there will be no orderfor costs of the Secretary of State in this Appeal.

.

Jogesh Chandra Rayvs. Yakub Ali (03.12.1912 -CALHC)