Skip to content


The Deputy Collector Vs. the Maharajah of Pittapur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1926)50MLJ412
AppellantThe Deputy Collector
RespondentThe Maharajah of Pittapur
Cases ReferredRajah Nilomini Sinqh Deo Bahadur v. Ram Bandhu Rai
Excerpt:
- .....shall pay to each party the amount awarded to him. that is the essential motive and meaning of an award and government is bound, prima facie, to supply the money required to pay each party the amount of compensation due to him.2. in the present: case unfortunately, the deputy collector had not obeyed section 31 of the land acquisition act, and instead of depositing in court the amount to be apportioned, paid over to the tenants the amount awarded by him to them. consequently, when the district court increased the zamindar's share of the total compensation, the balance due to him was not available in court for payment over to him. the government view is that the zamindar must recover it from the tenants to whom it was paid in excess. the government pleader calls in aid the third proviso.....
Judgment:

1. The award of the District Court directed that the amount awarded by it should be paid to each party. We think this is a clear direction that Government shall pay to each party the amount awarded to him. That is the essential motive and meaning of an award and Government is bound, prima facie, to supply the money required to pay each party the amount of compensation due to him.

2. In the present: case unfortunately, the Deputy Collector had not obeyed Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, and instead of depositing in Court the amount to be apportioned, paid over to the tenants the amount awarded by him to them. Consequently, when the District Court increased the Zamindar's share of the total compensation, the balance due to him was not available in Court for payment over to him. The Government view is that the Zamindar must recover it from the tenants to whom it was paid in excess. The Government Pleader calls in aid the third proviso to Section 31(2). We do not think this proviso has any application. It only comes into operation when Section 31(2) itself has been obeyed, and does not apply to a case of excess payment wrongly made see Rajah Nilomini Sinqh Deo Bahadur v. Ram Bandhu Rai (1881) ILR 7C 388: 8 IA 90 (PC)

3. We think that Government was bound, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, to have ready in the District Court the amount awarded by the Referring Officer for distribution according to the decision of the District Court. If the District Court had, in a proper reference, increased the amount of compensation, Government is bound to pay into Court the amount of increased compensation. The principle is not altered when an apportionment of the compensation amount is increased, and if the Referring Officer had obeyed Section 31, the necessary money would have been there. It is not right that Government should throw on a party, whose property it. has compulsorily acquired, the risk and burden of recovering the compensation from some one else to whom Government has wrongfully paid it. Whether Government can, by appropriate proceedings, recover the excess from those to whom it was paid is for Government to consider. We are not prepared at this stage to grant time to Government, as requested by the Government: Pleader, to appeal against the award of the District Court. It seems to us a proper award and the appeal time has long ago expired.

4. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Lower Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //