V.B. Raju, J.
1. This revision is against an order awarding compensation at rate of Rs. 10-5-0 per Guntha for the property of the applicant which was requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948 The first contention that the rate of compensation should be Rs. 16-12-0 per Guntha and not Rs. 10-5-0 is purely a question of fact and cannot be interfered with in revision.
It is also contended that possession of the property was taken before the rate of compensation was fixed and that therefore interest should have been granted which has not been done.
The Learned Counsel for the State contends that no application lies because the order was passed by the District Judge and he cites Municipality of Belgaum v. Rudrappa 18 Bom. L.R. 340. He also contends that in Section 8 of the Land Requisition Act 1948 only Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act 1094 have been referred to but not Section 34 which deals with interest. He therefore contends that interest is not payable under Section 8 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948 The contention that no revision lies is clearly wrong because Section 8 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948 provides that an appeal shall lie to the District Court and it is against that order that the revision application has been made. The District Court is a Court which is subordinate to the High Court. Section 8 does not say that the appeal shall lie to the District Judge. The contention that the order has not been passed by a Court but by the District Judge is therefore without substance. In 18 Bom. L.R. 340 the following observations were made:
In Balaji Sakhuram v. Merwanji Nowroji I.L.R. 21 Bom. 279 this Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to revise the order of a District Judge acting under Section 23 of the Bombay District Municipalities Act of 1884. And although the words occurring in that section are 'District Judge' whereas the words occurring in Section 160 last clause, are 'District Court'' we do not think that the distinction is sufficient to support the argument that an application for revision is competent although admittedly no appeal would lie.
It is difficult to agree with these observations. It is difficult to see why there is no sufficient distinction between the expression District Judge and the expression District Court. I therefore find it difficult to agree with the observations made in 18 Bom. L.R. 340.
2. As regards interest it is true that in the Land Acquisition Act a provision interest is made in Section 34 It is provided in Section 8 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 1948 that the offices shall determine such amount of compensation as he deems just having regard to all the circumstances of the case; and in particular he shall be guided by the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 and Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in so far as they can be made applicable. But Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have been referred to only as a guide. The officer has to determine the amount of compensation having regard to all the circumstances of the case. When possession of properly has been taken long before compensation is fixed interest should have been awarded on the amount of compensation to be awarded. Interest in such a case would be part of the compensation. It was therefore necessary for the officer and the District Court in appeal to award interest on the amount awarded as compensation from the date of the possession to the date on which the order fixing the rate of compensation was passed.
3. The revision application is therefore allowed and the lower Court is directed to award interest at a percent per annum on the amount awarded from the date when the possession was taken by the State to the date when compensation was fixed. No order as to costs.