Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal by the Collector, Raigarh, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the award of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Rai-garh, in Misc. Judicial Cases Nos. 13 and 14 of 1958. The award was made on a reference under Section 18 of the Act by the Collector, Raigarh, in Land Acquisition cases relating to village Ren-galpali, Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh. The respondents have filed a cross-objection requesting for raising the compensation awarded to them by the 2nd Additional District Judge. This judgment governs the disposal of both the appeal and the cross-objection.

2. The Orissa Government has constructed an irrigation tank under the Hirakund Dam Project. Several villages of the Raigarh Tahsil have been fully or partly submerged under water of the tank. At the instance of the Orissa Government, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh issued notifications under Sections A and 6 of the Act for acquisition of lands in those villages for the tank. The lands belonging to the respondents and several other persons have been acquired giving rise to a number of acquisition cases from each village.

Several appeals have been filed against the awards in this Court. The claimants from Rai-garh Tahsil had agreed that the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced in these miscellaneous judicial cases before the Additional District Judge shall be read for all other cases. It has also been ac-cepted by the learned counsel for the parties that the evidence in other cases may also be read for the decision of these two appeals. Decision on certain issues between the parties as recorded in this case will be read in the connected appeals and will be referred to at appropriate places in these judgments.

3. The properties of the respondents acquired in these two cases are:

(i) Lands

(ii) A fruit garden

(iii) Houses

(iv) Wells

and (y) Trees, plants etc.

The Collector awarded the total amount of Rs. 56254/6/- in one case and Rs. 3240/- in another case. These amounts have been withdrawn by the respondents under protest. They requested the Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Court claiming the value of their lands at Rs. 2000/- per acre and also claimed enhanced values for trees, plants and other properties acquired. The learned Additional District Judge raised the total compensation to Rs. 3,19,480/10/- in respect of the several items. The Collector has, therefore, come up in appeal.

4. On behalf of the respondents, Shri R. K. Verma has raised a preliminary objection that the appeals should have been filed in the name of the State Government and as they have been preferred by the Collector, Raigarh, they should be dismissed. It is true that the State Government is the real party aggrieved and the appeals should have been filed in the name of the State Government through the Collector as their agent. However, the defect does not appear to us to be fatal. The Collector has a right to act for the Government under the specific provisions of the Act. For instance, it is the duty of the Collector to make an award and after he has done so, it is he who takes possession of the land under Section 16. The duty of paying the compensation is laid on the Collector under Section 31. Section 28 requires the Collector to pay interest on the amount awarded by the Court in excess of his award. In fact, all these amounts have to be paid by the State Government; but under the special provisions of the Act it is the Collector who has to perform that duty.

Now, if the Collector wants to be relieved of a part of the statutory liability created by the award of the Court, he should, in our opinion, be entitled to prefer an appeal against the award. We do not think that it is necessary to file the appeal formally in the name of the State Government. Incidentally we may mention that the titles of saveral cases reported in the law reports from different High C