A civil suit is maintainable for recovery of an amount under the proviso to Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in case of a dispute regarding compensation among the interested persons.

RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.

1. This is a revision petition by the defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge IIIrd Class, Ambala City, dated 25th February, 1982

2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant was his real brother. They had joint land in Patti Mehar. In 1977, the parties partitioned the joint holding by way of family settlement and mutation of partition was duly sanctioned by the Revenue Officer on 3rd January. 1978. In the partition proceedings, Khasra No. 860 was divided into three parts and the plaintiff was allotted Khasra No. 860/3, measuring 10 Marlas. The State of Haryana acquired land measuring 1.69 acres under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) for a public purpose, which included the land in dispute. It, however, did not give any notice under Section 9 of the Act, nor it gave any notice after announcement of the award to the plaintiff. He, therefore, it is alleged, remained under an impression that the said Khasra number had not been acquired. The defendant came to know about the acquisition and he withdrew the sum of 1955/- awarded as the amount of compensation concealing the factum of partition between the parties. The defendant also moved an application for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Act on the basis of which the compensation was enhanced by an amount of Rs. 20,635/-. The amount has been deposited by the State in the Court of the Additional District Judge Ambala. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,955/- on account of compensation awarded by the Collector regarding the said Khasra number and for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to the sum of Rs. 20,635/- lying in deposit in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Ambala.

3. The defendant contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it. On the aforesaid pleading the trial Court framed the following Issue:-

Issue No. 4: Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ?

4 The issue was treated as a preliminary issue and the Court held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant came up in revision to this Court. At the time of motion hearing, it was admitted to D.B. That is how the case is before us.

5. It in contended by Mr. Bindra that a machinery has been provided in the Act to resolve the disputes regarding compensation between different claimants. He further submits that if a dispute arises, the party has to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and it cannot file a civil suit. In support of his contention, he relies on Raja Nilmoni Singh Deo Bahadur V/s. Ram Bandhu Rai, (1881) ILR 7 Cal 388 (PC) Amolak Shah V/s. Charan Das. (1912) 17 Ind Cas 684, Birendra Nath Banerjee V/s. Mritunjoy Roy, AIR 1962 Cal 275, and Chiranji Lal V/s. Ram Dutt. 1982 Pun LJ 80.

6. I have given due consideration to the argument but regret my inability to accept it. In order to determine the question, it will be advantageous to refer to sections 18. 30 and 31 of the Act. Under Section 18, an interested person, who does not accept the award, can get the matter referred to a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Under Section 30, the Collector is empowered to make a reference suo motu to the Court for decision as to whom the compensation is payable. Under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the Collector, on making an award, is required to tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons entitled thereto in accordance with the award and to pay it to their unless prevented by some of the contingencies mentioned in subsection (2). The present case involves interpretation of subsection (2) and its third proviso which are reproduced below:

"31 Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court :-

(2) If they shall not consent to receive it or if these be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any disp