( 221 )
THE GOVERNMENT AGENT, CENTRAL PROVINCE,v. AMARAKON et id.D. C., Mdtara, 1^344.
The Land Acquisition Ordinance, ss. 30 and 21—Form of award—Appeal.
In a suit under “ The Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1876,” unlesswhat purports to be an award’oomplies with all the requirements ofsection 30 of-the Ordinance, it is not to be treated as an award, andno appeal lies therefrom.
TN this case the claimant named in the libel of reference filed_ by the Government Agent disputed the sufficiency of the com-pensation awarded. The case was tried by the Distriot Judge andtwo assessors, and at its termination a decree was drawn up andsigned by the District Judge only, awarding to the olaimant acertain sum as compensation, and condemning him generally inhosts. On appeal by the claimant against this decree,
Domhorst and Pieris, for appellant.
Dios, C.C., for respondent.
29th October, 1896. Bonseb, C.J.—
We heard the argument on this, appeal against an award by theDistrict Court of. M&tara in- respect of certain land which has beencompulsorily acquired by the Government for purposes of therailway on the footing that an award had been made. I must saythat what I heard did not impress me with the idea of the Courthaving erred on the scale of illiberality. On the contrary, theimpression left on my mind is that the Government Agent wasexceedingly liberal with Government money in the offer that hemade. However, it is not necessary to go into these matters, foron looking into the record I find that no award has beenmadp.
Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Ordinance provides that“ Every award made by the court , shall be in writing signed by“ the district judge and assessors or assessor concurring therein,“ and shall specify the amount awarded under the “1st clause of“ section 21, and also the . amounts'(if any) respectively awarded“ under the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clauses of the same section, together“ with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts.” The20-.’
( 222 )
1896. award should thus state the several amounts awarded under eachOctober 29. a head of section 21.* It is also to state the amount of costs which .
Bonsbb, Q.J. has been incurred in the proceedings, and by. what person and inwhat proportions they are to be paid.
In this case what purports to be a decree has been drawn upand has been signed by the District Judge alone, and not by theassessor who concurred with him. It does not state the amountof costs incurred, but contains a general direction that the defendantwas to pay all the costs. That is a mere nullity.
No appeal can be brought to this Court except against and award,and if no award has been made no appeal lies. The appeal isdismissed with costs.