BISWA NATH SINHA Vs. BIDHUMUKHI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dwelling house belonging to a Hindu widow was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation money amounting to Rs. 5,800 odd was sent by the Collector to the District Judge under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Upon the lady making the application for taking out that money for the purpose of building a house to live in, there was an objection at first on behalf of the reversioner; but ultimately, the reversioner gave his consent to the money in deposit being invested by the Court under Section 32(a) of the Land Acquisition, Act for the construction of a suitable building. This consent was given upon an application of the lady for paying out the money to her. The order No. 14 shows that "the Pleader for the opposite party intimated that he had no objection to the permission being granted to the petitioner to withdraw the money in deposit for the construction of a suitable building for the petitioner." After this order was made to pay out the money, there was an application for review by the opposite party, but that was disallowed, and ultimately the money was paid out upon taking a surety bond from a third person and from the lady. Against this order allowing the lady to take out the money in this way, there was an appeal to this Court and also an application for revision. A preliminary objection was taken on the ground that an appeal was incompetent, and we think the preliminary objection is sound because under Section 54 of the Act no appeal lies from an order of this nature made by the District Judge. Dealing with the case, however, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we think that there have been some just reasons for complaint in the proceedings of the Court below. Although a large amount of money has been paid out for the purpose of a building, no plan or estimate has been taken and the surety bond that has been taken is worded so indefinitely that in case of loss there may be no chance of recovering any amount that may be lost. As the reversioner consented to the money being paid out, we are not inclined to alter the order that has been passed for paying the money.

(2.) We must, however, arrange for a safeguard against the misapplication of the money. We, therefore, direct that the learned Judge will enquire into the title in respect of the land that has been acquired by the lady for building a house in the presence of the reversioner. Then the lady will put in a plan and an estimate which will be passed by the learned Judge in the presence of the reversioner. Then a new surety bond will have to be filed within a time fixed by the Court, and the sufficiency of the security is to be tested in the presence of the reversioner; and the surety will be made liable for the misappropriation of the money and for the construction of the building according to the plan and estimate to be filed within a time to be fixed by the Court. When the house is completed, the lady should report the completion of the building to the Court and also file the accounts; and if there is any objection as to the plan not being properly carried out in accordance with the estimate, the Judge will hear the objection, decide the same and pass proper orders. If there is any money left, it will be deposited in Court for being dealt with in accordance with law.

(3.) In view of the results of the two proceedings, we make no order as to costs.