( 1 ) THIS is an application for revision against an order made by Shri R. D. Doongaji. Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 32 of 1956 on 13-12-1956.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are simple. Land was acquired by the Collector, and two claimants for the compensation money appeared before the Collector. One is the present applicant, the Hitkarini Sabha, a registered body running some educational institutions at Jabalpur, and the other is the non-applicant, the Corporation of the city of Jabalpur. The Collector assessed the compensation and apportion ed between the Sabha and the Corporation, awarding to the former a sum of Rs. 2,34,739/ -. On the day the award was announced, both the parties were present through their representatives and vouchers for payment to the Sabha and the corporation Were drawn up to he handed over to them. The Corporation did not accent the payment, their agent informing the Collector that instructions had to be obtained. The Sabha accepted the voucher and withdrew the money.

( 3 ) LATER, the Corporation accepted its share of the compensation money, though under protest. Under the terms of section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, a reference was necessary to be made, because there was a dispute as to the apportionment as well as to the party entitled to receive the compensation money. The learned Collector, it appears, overlooked the provisions of Sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act and, instead of forwarding the money to the court to which the reference was to be made, paid out the money to the respective parties. When the reference reached the learned Judge, whose order is impugned in this revision, he felt that his jurisdiction was ousted by the payment of the compensation money to the parties. He accordingly directed the Sabha to deposit the amount in his Court before a particular date. The present application for revision has been filed against that order.

( 4 ) THE first question that arises is whether the jurisdiction of the learned Judge hearing the reference is ousted by the payment. The learned Judge has apparently relied upon a case reported in Jogesh Chandra v. Yakub Ali, 21 Ind Cas 111 (Cal)

(A), which, on a close inspection, does not bear out the propositon which he thinks is laid down in it. Indeed, the case shows that fortuitous payment by the Collector, in spite of a dispute as to who should receive the compensation money, does not oust the Jurisdiction of the Court to hear the reference. Other authorities on the subject exist and they are to be found in Ramhit v. Mahadeo, AIR 1920 Pat 222 (B), Satish Chandra v. Ananda Gopal Das, 20 Cal WN 816: (AIR 1916 Cal 514) (C)and K. N. K. R. M. K. Chettiar Firm v. Secretary of State, ILR 11 Rang 344: (AIR 1933 Rang 176) (D ). Many other cases on the subject exist; and, indeed,, no case has been brought to our notice which expressly lays down that the jurisdiction to hear the reference is ousted by reason of the payment of the compensation money by the Collector to a party.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant relied strongly on Abdul Sattar v. Hamida bibi, AIR 1950 Lah 229 (FB) (E) where it was laid down that it was not open to the reference Court to recall the money which had been paid by the Collector. It appears that on this part of the case there is a certain amount of difference of opinion in India. The Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in the last cited case referred to Gobindaranee Dasee v. Brinda Rance Dasee, ILR 35 Cal 1104 (F) and mt. Gohar Sultan v. Ali Muhmmad, AIR 1921 Lah 153 (G ). The cases to which we have referred and there are many others clearly show that the Court can in a suitable case order the amount to be returned or paid to the rightful party. We do not think that it is necessary to decide finally this question, because on the terms of Section 31, of the Land Acquisition Act it is quite clear that the Collector acted against the express provisions of Sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document