K.A. Swami, J.—The respondent has entered appearance through the learned Government Pleader Sri T.S. Mohammed Ali.

2. As this petition can be disposed of on a short ground, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

3. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 30-8-1989 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sagar in Ex. Nil of 1988 arising out of L.A.C. No. 8 to 11/78-79.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he owned a plot of land measuring 4 acres 23 guntas comprised in S.No. 11 of Chikkakoralahalli village. The said land was acquired by the State Government to expand the existing lake known as Anjanapura lake in Shikaripura Taluk. Pursuant to the acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer, passed an award in L.A.C.Nos.8 to 11/78-79 determining a compensation of Rs. 20,052/- towards the value of the land, well etc. Notice of passing of the award was also issued to the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that as the amount was not deposited in the Civil Court as required under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act'), he issued a legal notice dated 11-4-1988 demanding payment. As no reply was received by him from the respondent, he filed an Execution Petition for directing the respondent to deposit the award amount in LAC Nos. 8 to 11/78-79 before the Civil Court.

5. The learned Civil Judge has rejected the execution petition on the ground that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not a decree; that it is the award passed by the Court under Part III of the Act that is deemed to be a decree and not an award passed under Part II of the Act, therefore the execution petition is not maintainable. Accordingly the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the execution as not maintainable.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the provisions contained in Sections 3(d), 31 and 53 of the Act contends that pursuant to the award, the Collector is required to deposit the award amount before the Civil Court under civil deposit and as he has not done, the petitioner is entitled to execute the award and compel the respondent to deposit the same in the Civil Court under Section 31 of the Act.

7. It is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Clause (d) of Section 3 of the Act only defines the expression 'Court'. According to that the expression, 'Court' means a Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, unless the appropriate Government has appointed a special Judicial Officer within any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court under the Act. Section 31 provides for depositing of the amount by the Collector, on making an award under Section 11 of the Act, before the Civil Court if the person in whose favour the award is passed refuses to receive the amount or there is any dispute relating to apportionment of, or title to receive, the compensation amount.

8. Section 53 provides as to applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings under the Act. It reads thus:

"Save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act."

9. On the basis of the above provision, it is contended that as the application for execution is filed before the Civil Court and as the provisions of the C.P. Code apply to the proceedings before the Civil Court, the execution petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. It is not possible to accept this proposition. There is no doubt that the provisions of the C.P. Code are attracted to a proceeding before a Civil Court under the Act; but that question will arise only if the proceeding initiated by the petitioner is permissible, or in other words maintainable in law. Here is a case in which the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not a decree. It is passed under Part II of the Act. It is no