JUDGMENT

Srivastava, J - This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decision, dated 21st September 1931, of the learned Subordinate Judge of Unao setting aside the decision dated 30th August 1930 of the Munsif of Safipurat Unao and dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The facts of the case are as follows. The Irrigation Department acquired certain lands in Mauza Safipur for the purposes of the Sarda Canal under the Land Acquisition Act (No. 1 of 1894). A sum of Rs. 536 was the compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer to defendants 1 to 13 in respect of the lands in suit. The plaintiff's case was that he was legally entitled to the aforesaid compensation and that defendants 1 to 13 had wrongfully received it. Defendants 1 to 13 resisted the suit on several grounds. One of these grounds, which is the only one with which we are concerned in this appeal, was that the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit because he was a party to the proceedings held under the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Munsif disallowed the plea and held that the plaintiff was the owner of half the land in suit and accordingly gave him a decree for half of the amount claimed. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. It is not disputed that on 6th February 1926 the land acquisition officer issued a notice to the plaintiff under Section 9, Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the land in suit. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that this notice was served personally on Chheddi Ram, plaintiff, on 12th February 1926. The notice required Cheddi Ram to state the nature of his interest in the land and the amount and particulars of his claim to compensation for such interest, on 3rd March 1926. Chhedi Ram did not appear on 3rd March nor was any objection filed on his behalf on that date. On the other hand defendants 1 to 13, who had also received a similar notice, filed an objection on that date stating that Cheddi Ram had no right left in the lands in suit. It appears however that on 27th March 1926 Cheddi Ram made an application to the Collector of Unao claiming ownership of the land in suit and asking that compensation in respect of it should be paid to him and not to defendants 1 to 13. This application was sent by the Collector to the land acquisition officer who on 1st April 1926 ordered the application to be filed. On 20th January 1927 the land acquisition officer made his award. The award shows that defendants 1 to 13 were adjudged entitled to Rs. 536 as compensation for their proprietary interest in the lands in suit and Cheddi Ram was considered entitled to Rs. 27 as compensation for his tenant's rights in the same lands. The plaintiff as well as defendants 1 to 13 were present when the award was made and the compensation referred to above was paid to them the same day. It may be noted that Chhedi Ram received the sum of Rs. 27 without any protest. It is also admitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that he did not make any application under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, for a reference to Court either as regards the amount of compensation or the persons to whom it was payable or its apportionment amongst the persons interested. On these facts which are no longer in dispute the learned Subordinate Judge held that the present suit was not maintainable.

3. The only argument urged on behalf of the appellant is based on Prov. 3, Section 31(2), Land Acquisition Act. It is admitted that the award has now become conclusive against the appellant, but it is argued that under Section 12, Land Acquisition Act, it debars the plaintiff only from making any claim against the Collector. The argument proceeds that by virtue of the last proviso of Section 31(2), Land Acquisition Act, the plaintiff is entitled to claim from the defendants the compensation received by them to which they were not lawfully entitled. Relia