JUDGMENT 1. No. 67C, Beadon Street was acquired by the Collector of Calcutta on behalf of the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. The Collector awarded Rs. 44,500 as the market value of the land, Rs. 900 for the structures and Rs. 6810 statutory allowance at the rate of 15 per cent. The total amount awarded by the Collector was Rs. 52,210. Possession was taken by the Collector on 1st April 1931. The owner of the premises Bhupati Nath Deb was not satisfied with the Collector's valuation. He accordingly asked the Collector to make a reference to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The reference made was accepted by the Tribunal and the market value of the land was enhanced to Rs. 66,800 by an award made by the Tribunal on 7th September 1933. On 16th September 1933 the enhanced amount together with statutory compensation plus interest at the rate of 6 per cent. on the enhanced amount from 1st April 1931 when possession was taken, was deposited by the Collector in the Tribunal and was withdrawn by the owner Bhupathi Nath Deb. The Province of Bengal preferred an appeal against the award of the Tribunal to this Court being First Appeal No. 368 of 1933. That appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. After remand, the Tribunal made a fresh award awarding Rs. 66,605 as the market value of the land. There was a further appeal by the Province of Bengal against that award being First Appeal No. 242 of 1936. That appeal was compromised in this Court on 4th July 1938. The terms of settlement were as follows: (1) That instead of Rs. 66,605 as assessed by the Tribunal for the value of the land alone the sum of Rs. 52,000 (fifty-two thousand) only be assessed, (2) Each party shall bear his own costs throughout before the Tribunal and this Hon'ble Court, (3) That the decree of the Court below be varied accordingly. 2. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 949-3-2 as cost to the owner. That cost was also deposited by the Province of Bengal and was withdrawn by the owner on 16th September 1933. On 13th December 1938, the Province of Bengal made an application to the President of the Tribunal for restitution. In the application, the Province of Bengal claimed a refund of Rs. 949-3-2 as cost to the owner. That cost was also deposited by the Province of Bengal and was withdrawn by the owner on 16th September 1933. On 13th December 1938, the Province of Bengal made an application to the President of the Tribunal for restitution. In the application, the Province of Bengal claimed a refund of Rs. 17,020 being an amount paid to the owner which was in excess of the amount which the owner was entitled to receive in terms of the compromise decree made by this Court, Interest was also claimed at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from 1st April 1931 the date when the Collector took possession till payment. In that application, the Province of Bengal also claimed a refund of the costs amounting to Rs. 949-3-2 with interest at the said rate from 16th September 1933 when that amount was also paid. The application was heard by the President of the Tribunal ex parte as the owner, Bhupati Nath Deb, failed to appear at the hearing. The President allowed that application and directed the owner to refund the sum of Rs. 17,020 with interest at 6 per cent, from 1st April 1931 as also Rs. 949-3-2 with interest at 6 per cent. from 16th September 1933. It is against this order that the owner Bhupati Nath Deb has preferred this appeal. 3. Two points have been taken by Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the appellant: (1) That the President had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for refund; the proper remedy of the Province of Bengal was to institute a suit for recovery thereof; and (2) in any event, the interest at 6 per cent. per annum is a high rate in the circumstances of this case. 4. We do not think the first point ought to be given effect to. Chapter IV of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, deals with the acquisition and disposal of land by Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. Section 68 empowers the Board to acquire land by private treaty. Section 69 deals with compulsory acquisition. The acquisition by the Board under that section must be through the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Chapter IV of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911, deals with the acquisition and disposal of land by Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. Section 68 empowers the Board to acquire land by private treaty. Section 69 deals with compulsory acquisition. The acquisition by the Board under that section must be through the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. If the owner is not satisfied with the Collector's award made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the owner has a right to apply for a reference under S. 18, Land Acquisition Act, but the reference is to be made not to the Court as defined in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but to the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of S. 72, Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911. That is the effect of S. 70 of the last-mentioned Act. The section says: A Tribunal shall be constituted, as provided in S. 72, for the purpose of performing the functions of the Court in reference to the acquisition of land for the Board under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A special Court is, therefore, created for the purpose of dealing with references under S. 18, Land Acquisition Act where the land acquired had been acquired for the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. That Court, though a special Court, in our opinion, would have all the powers of a civil Court of original jurisdiction which is the Court mentioned in S. 18, Land Acquisition Act and as such would have the inherent powers of a civil Court. Although S. 141 Civil P.C. would not apply in terms to the application that was filed by the Province of Bengal, because the award made by Calcutta Improvement Tribunal is not a decree. Asmaboo Kurban Hossain and Others Vs. Province of Bengal, AIR 1942 Cal 569 , that Tribunal would under its inherent powers have jurisdiction to grant restitution. The whole law of restitution, as has been pointed out in the case of Rai Charan Bhuiya and Others Vs. Debi Prosad Bhakut, AIR 1922 Cal 28 , is not contained in S. 144, Civil P.C. In this view of the matter, we hold that the President had the power to entertain the application and make suitable orders thereon. The whole law of restitution, as has been pointed out in the case of Rai Charan Bhuiya and Others Vs. Debi Prosad Bhakut, AIR 1922 Cal 28 , is not contained in S. 144, Civil P.C. In this view of the matter, we hold that the President had the power to entertain the application and make suitable orders thereon. Even if the matter be doubtful, the observations of Lord Macnaghten in the case of Munshi Prag Narain v. Thakur Kamakhia Singh, 36 I.A. 197 : (31 All. 551 P.C.) would apply. There the, mortgagee had purchased mortgaged property in execution of his mortgage decree. After his purchase, he went into possession and remained in possession. Thereafter, at the instance of the mortgagor the sale was set aside for irregularity. After the sale had been set aside, the mortgagor paid up the mortgage decree and made an application to the executing Court to recover mesne profits from the mortgagee purchaser for the period during which the latter was in possession. The mortgagee resisted that application on the ground that it was not maintainable and contended that the remedy of the mortgagor who claimed mesne profits by way of restitution lay in a separate suit. This contention of the mortgagor was given effect to by the Court of first instance. But the order of the first Court was reversed on appeal by the Judicial Commissioner. An appeal was taken to the Privy Council against this order of the Judicial Commissioner. Before the Privy Council, the contention which was put forward successfully before the Court of first instance was reiterated by the mortgagee, that is to say, his contention was that the remedy of the mortgagor lay in a separate suit. Lord Macnaghten in delivering the judgment of the Board began by saying that the appeal was a very idle one. Dealing with the specific contention, his Lordship made the following remarks: It is cot disputed that the respondents are entitled to recover mesne profits with interest. But it was argued that, having regard to certain provisions in the CPC taken in connection with the definition of a 'decree' in S. 2 of the Code, a separate suit was required, although it was admitted that precisely the same relief would be obtained whether the application were made in a separate suit or in the execution proceedings..... But it was argued that, having regard to certain provisions in the CPC taken in connection with the definition of a 'decree' in S. 2 of the Code, a separate suit was required, although it was admitted that precisely the same relief would be obtained whether the application were made in a separate suit or in the execution proceedings..... In their Lordships' opinion there is no substance in either of these contentions. The claim of the respondents to have the questions in dispute determined in the execution proceedings is justified by Ss. 583 and 244, Civil P.C. Even if the point were doubtful, their Lordships would not be disposed, at this stage of the proceedings, to permit the expense and delay of a separate suit. 5. In our judgment, the last-mentioned observations apply with equal force to the facts before us. There is no dispute that an excess amount was paid by the Province of Bengal to the owner in pursuance of an order of the Tribunal which was modified by consent on appeal. That excess amount is justly due to the Province of Bengal and there cannot be any possible defence on the part of the owner to a claim for restitution. It makes no difference on the merits whether a claim for restitution is put forward by the Province of Bengal by an application to the President of the Tribunal or is put forward in a regularly constituted suit. In these circumstances, it would be wrong to drive the Province of Bengal to a separate suit when the owner took no part in the proceedings for restitution when they were pending before the President. We accordingly overrule the first contention that has been raised by Mr. Das. 6. Regarding the second contention, the position is this. The Government paid interest at the 6 per cent. on the excess amount from 1st April 1931, when possession was taken by the Collector till 16th September 1933. The Province of Bengal, therefore, is entitled to get interest on the sum of Rs. 17,020 at 6 per cent. per annum (simple) for that period, namely, from 1st April 1931, to 16th September 1933. From 17th September 1933, till 4th July 1938 when the matter was compromised in this Court, the position was uncertain, and during this period the amount awarded by the Tribunal remained intact. 17,020 at 6 per cent. per annum (simple) for that period, namely, from 1st April 1931, to 16th September 1933. From 17th September 1933, till 4th July 1938 when the matter was compromised in this Court, the position was uncertain, and during this period the amount awarded by the Tribunal remained intact. After this appeal had been filed, the Province of Bengal applied for execution of the order for restitution made by the President. On that, a Rule was issued by this Court. In terms of the Rule, the appellant before us deposited the sum of Rs. 14,000 in the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, on 19th September, 1939 and gave security for the balance. Whatever rate that we may award for the period beginning from 17th September 1933, the interest on Rs. 14,000, would cease to run from 19th September 1939 when that deposit was made to the credit of the Province of Bengal by the appellant. 7. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, we think that simple interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum ought to be awarded on the amount which the appellant has to refund from 17th September 1933 onwards. That amount is Rs. 17,020, being the excess compensation and Rs. 949-3-2 which represent the costs that had been taken away by the owner. 8. In modification of the order passed by the learned President, our order, therefore, is as follows: The appellant must pay back to the Province of Bengal a further sum of Rs. 3020 plus Rs. 949-3-2. Interest is allowed on the sum of Rs. 17,020 at the rate of six per cent. per annum from 1st April 1931, till 18th September 1933, and thereafter at the rate of three per cent, per annum (simple) up to 19th September 1939. As Rs. 14,000 was deposited on that date, interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum (simple) would run on the balance of Rs. 3020 from 20th September 1939 till recovery. 9. The appellant must also pay back to the Province of Bengal the sum of Rs. 949-3-2 with interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum (simple) from 16th September 1933, till recovery. 10. Subject to the above modifications, the order passed by the Tribunal is affirmed. The Province of Bengal would be at liberty to withdraw, if not already withdrawn, the sum of Rs. 949-3-2 with interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum (simple) from 16th September 1933, till recovery. 10. Subject to the above modifications, the order passed by the Tribunal is affirmed. The Province of Bengal would be at liberty to withdraw, if not already withdrawn, the sum of Rs. 14,000 which is in deposit in the Small Causes Court, Calcutta. The appellant must pay to the respondent, the costs of this appeal, hearing fee three gold mohurs. No order is necessary on the application under S. 115, Civil P.C.