The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'Court' under Section 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the right of appeal from the decision of a Subordinate Judge appointed by the Provincial Government.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This revision petition raises the question whether an appeal lies from the decision of a Subordinate Judge appointed by the Provincial Government under Section 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to decide a dispute referred by the Collector under Section 30 of the Act. That section empowers the Collector to refer to "the Court" a dispute as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation settled under Section 11 or as to the persons to whom the compensation is payable. Section 3(d) defines the word "Court" as meaning a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, unless the Provincial Government has appointed (as it is empowered to do) a special judicial officer to perform the functions of the Court. In this case the Government of Madras appointed the Subordinate Judge of Salem to perform the functions of the Court under the Act. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the decision of the Subordinate Judge and filed an appeal to the District Judge of Salem, but the District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was incompetent by reason of the decision of this Court in Krishnamoorthi Aiyar v. The Special Deputy Collector of Land Acquisition, Kumbakonam (1935) 71 M.L.J. 76 : I.L.R. 59 Mad. 554. The petitioner conceded that this was the effect of the decision, but he contends that it does not correctly state the law. He says that the judgments of the Privy Council in Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao (1922) 43 M.L.J. 78 : L.R. 49 I.A 129 : I.L.R. 45 Mad. 320 and Bhagwati v. Ram Kali (1939) 2 M.L.J. 98 : L.R. 66 IndAp 145 : I.L.R. 1939 All. 460 leave no doubt that an appeal does lie.

2. Before proceeding to examine the authorities which have been quoted to us in the course of the arguments I will refer to other provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which have bearing on the question under discussion. Section 18 says that any person who has not accepted an award may require the Collector to refer the matter for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Therefore a person interested can require the Collector to refer a dispute as to the apportionment to the Court, just as the Collector may refer it on his own initiative under the provisions of Section 30. As the result of the decision of the Privy Council in Rangoon Botatoung Co. Limited v. The Collector, Rangoon (1912) 23 M.L.J. 276 : L.R. 39 IndAp 197 : I.L.R. 40 Cal. 21 , Section 26 of the Act was amended, and it is now provided that an award made under Section 18 shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of the award a judgment within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (2) and Section 2, Clause (9), respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The effect of this amendment is to bring the award within the purview of Section 54. Section 31 says that on making an award under Section 11 (which relates to the inquiry into the area of the land, the compensation payable for it, and the apportionment of the compensation) the Collector shall pay the compensation awarded by him to the persons entitled thereto, unless prevented by one or more of the following contingencies:--(i) If they shall consent to receive it, (ii) or if there be no person competent to alienate the land; or (iii) if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it. In such circumstances the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. Section 53 says that save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in the Act the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Act. Section 54 reads as follows:

Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure