1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated the 19th June 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif at Fatikcheri. The facts are these: In the year 1908, the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam made a declaration under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act with reference to the compulsory acquisition of a particular piece of land and the structures standing' thereon and the trees growing upon the same for the purpose of providing the site for the residence of a judicial officer. The ordinary notice was issued calling upon the parties claiming interest to come in before the Collector and prefer their claim. That notice was served upon the present plaintiff. He came in and appeared before the Collector. The Collector adjudicated on his claim and found that the only right that the present plaintiff had was a right to the structure on the land and the tree or trees growing' thereon: and for those the plaintiff was awarded the sum of Rs. 60 only. Being dissatisfied with that award instead of applying to the Collector to make a reference under the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for damages against, the Secretary of State for India in Council claiming Rs. 175 as the value of the land which had been acquired by the Government. I am quite, clear that a suit of this sort does not lie. The plaintiff had an ample remedy by applying to the Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and to have his rights adjudicated on by the Civil Court. It is argued in this case that the award is not an award. I do not know what else it is, and when I asked the learned Vakil appearing for the appellant what he called that piece of paper upon which the Collector had written what purports to be his award, the nearest approach to what the learned gentleman's view was of this paper was that he called it a proceeding under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, It is no use calling an award a proceeding under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. If it is an award, it is quite clear that the plaintiff's remedy lies under the Act. Then it is said that the authorities establish that the plaintiff has a right of suit in a case like this. They do nothing of the sort. The authorities, when properly read, are clearly against the plaintiff's contention. The two cases which are chiefly relied on, namely, the case of Mantharavadi Venkayya v. Secretary of State for India in Council 27 M. 535 and Rameswar Singh v. Secretary of State for India 34 C. 470 : 11 C.W.N. 356 : 5 C.L.J. 669, are clearly against., the plaintiff's contention. All that those cases establish is this, that where the Collector won't take up the matter and won't make an award, then in order that the plaintiff may not be deprived of his remedy, he may maintain a suit in the ordinary Court for compensation which the Collector declines to assess. Those do not apply to the case where the Collector has made an award and where the plaintiff has got a right of calling upon the Collector to refer the matter to the Civil Court under the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In my opinion, the learned Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff could not maintain a suit of this nature. In that view, the present appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
2. I agree.