CHANDAR LAL SAH Vs. COLLECTOR OF BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F.A. No. 160 of 1919 and Revision No. 61 of 1919 have arisen, out of certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act which wore taken in the court of the District Judge of Bareilly. Both the revision and the appeal have been filed as a matter of precaution, as the appellants were in doubt as to which was the proper course to take in the circumstance of the ease. The facts are as follows: Certain land was notified under the Land Acquisition Act; notices were issued; some of the land had standing upon it certain trees; a valuation was made by the Land Acquisition Officer in which a sum of Rs. 184 was entered as the value of the timber of the trees. Before the Collector made any award, permission was given to the owner of the land to cut and remove these trees. He did cut [and remove the trees. After this had been done the Collector made an award. The appellants before us, or rather their predecessor in title, was not satisfied with the award and asked for a reference to the court of the District Judge. Under Section 19 the reference was made. An award was made by the Judge, an appeal was preferred to this Court to set aside that award and the case was remanded to the District Judge again. On the remand, on the 23 of July, 1917, the District Judge made, what we presume he would call, an award under the Act. Now what he did actually do was to give certain reasons and then pass the following order: For the above reasons I confirm the award of the Collector and order that a decree in accordance therewith be drawn up as laid down in Secs.26 and 27 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The Judge's office, instead of drawing up a formal award in accordance with Secs.26 and 27, drew up the following order: It is ordered that the award of the Collector of Bareilly be confirmed, that a decree to drawn up as laid down in Secs.26 and 27 of the Land Acquisition Act, that the petitioner do pay all costs of these proceedings, except those costs regarding which orders have been passed by the Hon ble High Court, and it is further ordered that the opposite party do pay to the Collector of Bareilly the sum of Rs. 55-15, the amount of costs incurred by him on account of this application.

(3.) Section 26 of the Act says: Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts,