The Collector erred in paying the compensation to the landlord despite the dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding apportionment. The tenant was entitled to recover his share of the compensation from the landlord, either by filing an application before the District Judge for adjustment of the earlier payment or by filing a suit for recovery. The principle of res judicata applied to the execution proceedings, and the landlord could not raise the same objections that had been adjudicated earlier.

1. This judgment will dispose of E. F. A. Nos. 64, 86 to 92 and 101 of 1975 and 145 of 1976. The facts in the judgment are being given from E. F. A. No. 64 of 1975.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Ram Chander, since deceased (now represented by Jog Raj and Prithvi Raj, his sons) was the owner of the land in dispute which was on perpetual lease with Banarsi Dass, respondent No. 1. The land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Banarsi Dass, tenant, claimed apportionment of the amount of compensation. The Collector, in spite of the claim of the tenant, paid the amount of compensation assessed by him to the landlord. The landlord, dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, filed an application u/s. 18 of the Act, for referring the matter to the Court. The tenant also filed a similar application for enhancement of the compensation and apportionment of the amount.

3. The Collector referred both the applications to the District Judge, Gurgaon, for deciding the matter. The District Judge, vide order dated 21.01.1974, enhanced the amount of compensation and simultaneously held that the landlord was entitled to capitalised value at 20 times of the rental value and the tenant was entitled to the remaining compensation. The Collector, in accordance with the order of the District Judge, deposited the enhanced amount of compensation in his Court. The landlord filed an application for payment of the amount of compensation to him. The tenant also filed an application to the effect that out of the amount deposited, the total amount payable to him be deducted and paid to him.

4. The question that arises for determination is as to how the amount deposited with the Collector under the award of the Court is to be distributed. The counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that 20 times of the lease money is to be paid to the appellants out of the amount deposited and the balance to the tenant. He further submits that the amount already paid to the landlord by the Collector should not be adjusted while paying his share out of the enhanced amount. On the other hand, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the tenant, has submitted that the landlord was not entitled to the whole amount paid by the Collector to him. According to him, the payment out of the enhanced amount should be made to the landlord in accordance with the award of the Court by making adjustment of the payment made to him by the Collector.

5. I have given a deep thought to the arguments of the learned counsel. There is no specific provision in the Act in order to decide this matter. The counsel have placed reliance on Sec. 31 of the Act which reads as follows:-

"31 (1). On making an award u/s. 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.

(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference u/s. 18 would be submitted. Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount;

Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application u/s. 18:

Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.

(3) ... ...

(4) ... ..."

6. From a reading of sub-sec. (2) it is evident that if there is any dispute as to the title to receive payment of the compensation or its appointment,