S.K.MAL LODHA - (1.) THESE two connected revisions directed against the order dated January 27, 1978, of the District Judge, Jodhpur. The learned District Judge has passed an order under sec. 54 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act (No. XXXV of 1959) which will hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, be referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) THE material facts leading to these revisions may initially be noticed first. In S. B. Civil Revision No. 253 of 1978, Gokul Narain is the petitioner whereas in S. B. Civil Revision No. 260 of 1978, State of Rajasthan is the petitioner. Gokul Narain (hereinafter 'the claimant') owned a bouse situate in Girdikot, Jodhpur. The State of Rajasthan framed a scheme for the construction of over-bridge to city tower road In that connection, a Notification under s. 52 of the Act was issued on August 12, 1964. Under that scheme, part of the claimant's land was proposed to be acquired. The claimant contested the Notification under s. 52 of the Act. As the claimant did not agree to receive the compensation by agreement, the State Government referred the case to the Collector. Jodhpur for determining the amount of compensation On receipt of notice from the Collector, Jodhpur, the claimant filed a claim for Rs. 2,51,004/-. A sum of Rs. 2,07,004/- was claimed as cost of the land at the rate of Rs. 28/- per sq. ft. as the land measured 10350 sq. ft. and Rs. 44.000/-as cost of 11 Godowns @ Rs. 4,000/- each an amount of Rs. 10, 000/- was claimed as compensation, for 'Baori' which was partially acquired. The Addl. Collector, recorded the statements of Govind Das, Shyam-Lal, Roopchand, Madan Mohan Parihar, Father of Roi and the claimant in support of the claim. The Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur examined its Oversear Jagmala Ram. The claimant also produced doel Mentary evidence in support of his claim. The Additional Collector, by his order dated June 30, 1976, awarded a sum of Rs. 70,699.82 as compensation. The amount was awarded @ Rs. 6. 50 per sq. ft. for the land and a sum of Rs. 3423/- for the built portion including the compound wall. Neither the claimant nor the State of Rajasthan remained satisfied with the award. Both were aggrieved, by the State of Raj and Misc. Appeal No. 65/76 was filed Misc. Appeal No. 64 of 1976 was filed by Gokul Narain (the claimant). Both the appeals were filed under s. 54 of the Act. The learned District Judge, Jodhpur, increased the rate of the land from Rs. 6. 50 to 8. 50 per sq. ft. He therefore, by his order dated January 27, 1978 dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan and partially accepted the appeal of the claimant Gokul Narain. The claimant Gokul Narain has filed revision under s. 115, C.P.C. praying that the order dated January 27, 1978, of the learned District Judge, may be modified and the amount of compensation may be enhanced so as to award the amount as prayed for in his claim, which was filed before the Additional Collector. The State of Rajasthan has filed revision praying that the amount of compensation awarded may suitably be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act as enhancement of the compensation by the learned District Judge by Rs. 20, 700/-, is illegal and contrary to s. 53 of the Act.
(3.) I have heard Mr. A.L. Chopra, learned counsel for the claimant Gokul Narain and Mr. H. N. Calla, Govt. Advocate and Mr. D. K. Parihar, learned counsel for the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. Both the revisions have been filed under sec. 115, C.P.C. against the appellate order of District Judge, which he has passed under s. 54 of the Act. The first question that arises is whether the order of the learned District Judge passed under s. 54 of the Act, can be revised by this Court, Mr. A.L. Chopra, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the District Judge hearing an appeal under s. 54 of the Act. is a court subordinate to the High Court. He placed reliance on Bhanwri Singh v. Dy. C.M.E. Loco Shops, Western Railway, Ajmer (1), Patel Chunibhai Jivabhai v. the State of Gujarat (2); Bimla Rani Kohli v. M/s. Bandu Motor Finance Pvt. Ltd. (3) and Jan Mohammad Khan v. Mohamood Ali Khan (4). S. 54 of the Act reads as under:- "54. Appeal to the District Judge against decision of the Collector:- Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Collector determining the amount of compensation may within sixty days from the date of such decision appeal to the court of the District Judge having jurisdiction." ;