Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.
1. This is a revision petition by the defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge IIIrd Class, Ambala City, dated 25th February, I882.
2. Briefly. of the plaintiff is that the defendant was his real brother They had joint land in Patti Mehar In 1977. the parties partitioned the holding by way of family settle and mutation of partition was duly sanctioned by the Revenue officer on 3rd January. 1978. In the partition proceedings. Khasra No. 860 was divided into three parts and the plaintiff was allotted Khasra No. 860/3, measuring 10 Marlas. The State of Haryana acquired land measuring 1.89 acres under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) for a public purpose, which included the land in dispute. It, however, did not give any notice under Section 9 of the Act, nor it gave any notice matter announcement of the award to the plaintiff. He. therefore, it is alleged, remained under an impression that the said Khasra number had not been acquired The defendant came to know about the acquisition and he withdrew the sum of Rs. 1955/- awarded as the amount of compensation concealing the factum of partition between the parties. The defendant also moved an application for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the Act on the basis of. which the compensation was. enhanced by en amount of Rs. 20.835/-. The amount has been deposited by the State in the Court of the Additional District Judge Ambala. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,955/- on account of compensation awarded by the Collector regarding the said the a number and for declaration of the effect that he is entitled to the same of Rs. 20,835/- lying in deposit in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Ambala
3. The defendants contested the suit end later alia pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to by it. On the aforesaid pleading, the trial Court termed the following issue:--
Issue No. 4: Whether the Civil Court' has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ?
4. The issue was treated as a Preliminary issue and the Court held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit.. The defendant came up in provision to this Court At the time of motion hearing, it was admitted to D. B. That is how the case is before us
5. It is contended by Mr. Bindra that a machinery has been provided in the Act to resolve the disputes regarding compensation between different claimants, He further submits that H a dispute arises, the party has to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and it cannot file a civil suit. In support of his contention. He relies Raja Nilmoni Singh Deo Bahadur v. Rem Bandhn Rai, (1881) ILR 7 Cal 888 (PC Amolak Shah v. charan Das, (1s121 17 Ind Cas 684, Birendra Nath Baneriee v. Mritunjpy Roy, AIR 1962 Cal 275, end Chiranji ial v. Ram Dutt. 1982 Pun LJ 8A.
6. I have given due consideration to the argument but regret my inability to accept it. In order to determine the question, it will be advantageous to refer to sections 18, 30 and 31 of the Act Under Section 18, an interested person, who does not accept the award. can get the matter referred to a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction Under Section S0, the Collector is powered to make a reference suo motu to the Court for decision as to whom the compensation is payable. Under sub-section (1) of Section 31. the Collector, on making an award, is required to tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons entitled thereto in accordance with the award and to pay it to then unless prevented by some of the contingencies mentioned in a Sub section (2). The present case involves t interpretation of subsection (2) and its third Proviso which reproduced 'below.:--
'31 Payment of compensation or deposit of same in court:--
2. If they shall not o consent to receive it, or if be no Person-'competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the to receive the compensation as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall c Posh the amount of the no compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 19 would be submitted.
Provided also that nothing here is contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may have the whole or and of any compensation awarded under this Act. to pay the same to the Person lawfully entitled than to.'
7. Section 31 has been interpreted by the Supreme Court So Dr. G. H. Grant v. State of Bihar AIR 19 SC 237. J. C. Shah, J., speaking for the majority observed as follows (at p. 244):--
'In, determining, the, court, of,, amount of compensation: which may be offered, he has, it is true, to apportion the, amount-of compensation between the persons known or believed to. be interested in the land, of whom. or of whose claims, he has information. whether or not they have appeared before him,. But the scheme, of. apportionment by the Collector. does trot finally. determine the rights of the Persons interested in. the. amount of compensation: the. award. is only conclusive. between the Collector and the persons interested. and not among the persons interested. The Collector has no power. to finally adjudicate, upon the title to compensation:. that dispute,. has to he decided other in. a reference 1 under SC GB '18. or. under Section 30-or in a 'separate suit. Payment at compensation. therefore. ''under Section. 31 to. the, person declared by the away' ' to be entitled thereto discharges the State of 1', liability. to pay compensation (subject to any modification by the Court leaving. it open-to the. claimant to compensation to under 29 state: his., right in g reference.. under. Section 30 or by a separate suit.,,.
From the above observations, it. is clear that the award i final so far as the Collector. and the persons in interested. are concerned,. but it, is. not, so., among the persons. contested 1 the land,.The Persons. 1 interested can get. their dispute solved together. by asking the Collector to make i. referred Under Section. 18, pee, of this. Act or by-a separate.. suit. The same view had been expressed earlier in Hemanta Kumar Banerjee y Satish Chanda Banerjee,' AIR'. 1941 Cal 635. Hitkarini Sabha v., Jabalpftr Corporation, AIR 1958 Madh Pra 339, and Shri Deo Sansthan Chinchwad V. Chintaman Phamidhar 1 AIR 1962 BQM 214.)eo, Similar mat r came Up before me were. while sitting. in single Bench. in Jog. Rai v. Benars Dass., (1978) 80 Pun LR @258., AIR 1978 Punj & Har 189). 1 also took same view and held, that a suit. is.for re maintainable covers of an amount under proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act.
8. Now. I advert to the cases referred to by. Mr. Bindra. In Raja., Nilomoni Singh's case. (1881) ILR 7 Cal 388 (supra). there, was-&-dispute between the. Raja and his tenants, regarding the. compensation.The matter was referred to the ',Court under. The land Acquisition Act which was apportioned the compensation between the Rajas and-his tenants., The Raja did not file and appeal under the Provisions of the Act and then filed a suit for the purpose of setting aside the decision as to apportionment of the compensation given by the, Court under,, the Act. From the facts. it is evident that the matter had been taken cognizance by the Court under the Act.. Thereafter the, matter could not he taken cognizance. of by the Civil Court. In. Amolak Shah's case ((1912) 17 Ind Cas 684) (supra) as well, the matter: had. been. referred at. the.. instance of the, interested parties to. the, Court under-Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter. a suit was filed by some of ' interested persons.. it was held,,to he barred for the reason that if the interested parties once resort to the remedy provided under the Act. they cannot a civil suit thereafter. Thus, both the above cases are distinguishable and the learned counsel cannot derive any been-of from the observations made therein.
9. In Birendra Nath Banerjee's case (AIR 1962 Cal 275) '(supra), the learned Bench also observed. that where a person was not served with a notice under Section 9 of the Act and for that real failed t refer, his. claim or, objection before the Collector and on whom there was 'no noted served under See. 12 1(21 of the Act and for that reason failed to apply for a reference within the statutory period mentioned in Section la., it could not be said that the special remedy under the Act being thus lost. such. a person could not seek his remedy in tile ordinary court of law. It is clear from, the Above-observations that the' Bench does not dispute that in certain circumstances, and interested person can go to a Civil Court. to the, present case, the facts have been stated at ' length. The plaintiff-respondent clearly stated that he did not receive any notice from 'the Collector regarding the land in dispute and he did not come 'to know that' it had been acquired. It is well settled that in order; to determine the jurisdiction of, the Court. the pleas in the plaint are gone-vary taken into consideration. Reference in this connection may-be. made to the observations of a Division Bench in Mt. Duji, Kunwar v Aft.Baila Kaftwar.-AIR 1932 All 460. where-in. it *as observed that to ascertain jurisdiction the Court should regard allegations in the plaint..
10, In Chiranji Lal's case `(1982 Pun LJ 80) (supra): the learned single Judge observed by way` of obiter dicta that 'when a specific remedy is' Provided under a particular Statute, then the jurisdiction of A Civil Court to entertain the suit' is impliedly barred. 'The' view. Expressed the Supreme' Court in Dr: G: H: Grant's Case (AIR 1966 SC 2371 (supra) 'and by this' Court 'in Jog Rai's case (AIR 1978 Punj & Har 189) (supra). was not brought to the notice of' the learned Judge. With great respect to the learned Judge.' I do not agree with the view taken by him and overrule the same.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same with costs.
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.
12. I agree.
13. Petition dismissed.