Dixit C.J.

l. This order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 285, 291 and 297, all of 1963.

2. The petitioners in these four applications under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek writs of certiorari for quashing fresh awards made in April 1963 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Mahasamund; in place of the awards which he had made in December 1962 awarding compensation to the petitioners in respect of certain lands belonging to them acquired by the Government for irrigation purposes.

3. In making a fresh award in each case, the Land Acquisition Officer purported to act under section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) In Misc. Petitions Nos. 263 and 285 the impugned awards on review were made on 22nd April 1963. The impugned awards in the other two petitions were made on 11th April 1963. The original award made in 1962 in each was first approved by the Collector. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer commenced proceedings with a view to pay to the petitioners the amount of compensation payable to them under the awards and also addressed letters to, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Raipur, to intimate to him the Head of Account to draw the amount of compensation for payment to the petitioners. In the meantime, the petitioners also made demands for the payment of compensation amount awarded to them under the awards made in 1962. In reply to the letters of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Executive Engineer instead of intimating the Head of Account to draw the amount the Land Acquisition Officer that the amount of compensation awarded was excessive and that the awards made by him should be reviewed. There upon, the Land Acquisition Officer reviewed all the awards which he had originally made and which had been approved by the Collector and made fresh awards purporting to act under section 53 of the Act. By the fresh awards the petitioners have been made entitled to get amounts much less than those which had been allowed to them under the original awards.

4. The petitioners contend that the awards made in 1962 having been approved by the Collector and having been accepted by them became final and conclusive a, between the Collector and them, and the Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to review those awards under section 53 of the Act or under any other provision thereof. The respondents, however, contend in the returns filed by them that the awards did not become final as they had not been filed in the Collector's office as required by section 12 of the Act; and that even apart from section 53 the Land Acquisition Officer had inherent power to modify the awards which were merely offers of compensation to them.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we have reached the conclusion that all these petitions must be granted. The Land Acquisition Officer expressly referred to section 53 of the Act and thought that under that provision he had the power to review the awards originally made by him. But as is clear from the language of section 53 itself he had no such power. Section 53 provides:

"Save: in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act."

It will be seen that the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable by section 53 to proceedings before the "Court under the Act" and not to proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer. The expression "Court" as defined in section 3 (d) of the Act means "a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction unless the appropriate Government has appointed (as it is hereby empowered to do) a special Judicial officer with in any specified local limits to perform the functions of the Court under this Act". This definition is clear enough to show that the Land Acquisition Officer is not a Court and cannot, therefore, under section 53 review an orde