Judgment : Roy J. : This appeal from Original Order is directed against the judgment and order dated March 26, 1958 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.5 of 1957 by Shri C.C. Chakraborti, District Judge, Purulia, whereby Execution Case No. 1 of 1957 filed by the appellants herein was dismissed. 2. For the purpose: of constructing Police Lines at Belguma lands measuring more or less 25.22 acres in plot Nos. 433, 434, 469, 470 and 471 were acquired by the Government of Bihar. Out of the said lands 21.42 acres were in Mouza Belguma and the balance in Mouza Manguria. Although at the relevant time Government of Bihar was the appropriate Government but after transfer of territories the State of West Bengal became and still the same is the appropriate Government. The total amount of compensation for the said lands was determined at Rs. 59,671/4/8 ps. out of which Rs. 45. 199/14/0 ps. represented the compensation for plot No. 434 alone. 3. It appears that on April 21, 1952 a notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served at Calcutta on the erstwhile owner, Shri Sudhindra Nath Dutta asking him to file his claim at Ranch; within two days, i.e. on or by April 23, 1952. Such notice was admittedly served on the said Shri Dutta as he was deemed or found to be a person interested. Thereafter, on May 27, 1952 the Collector concerned passed an order for making an award. On May 31, 1952, the Solicitor of the said Sudhindra Nath Dutta addressed a letter to the said Collector asking for the particulars of the lands to be acquired for enabling his client to make an effective representation in the shape of objection. There is no denial of the receipt of the said letter but on the other hand evidence is otherwise. Although the said letter was duly received by the Collector concerned he at first did neither reply to the same nor comply with the requests contained therein. But on June 9, 1952 he drew up and made the award in the following manner :- 1) Rs.45, 199-14-0 ps to Soubhagyabati Sundari Debi, 2) Rs- 2, 396-10-0 ps to Jyoti Nahati, 3) Rs. 3,738-11-0 ps to Janardan Kishore Lal Singh Deo and then on June 11, 1952 be informed the said Solicitor of Sudhindra Nath Dutta about the making of the said Award. 3,738-11-0 ps to Janardan Kishore Lal Singh Deo and then on June 11, 1952 be informed the said Solicitor of Sudhindra Nath Dutta about the making of the said Award. It may be mentioned that nothing was awarded in favour of the said Sudhindra Nath Dutta. It transpires that thereafter on or about June 16, 1952, the compensations as mentioned herein before were paid to the awardees. 4. In the background as mentioned hereinbefore Sudhindra Nath Dutta filed an application for reference under section 18 of the Act and by his judgment and order dated May 31, 1956, made in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 83 of 1953, the learned Special Judge found favour with the contentions of the said Sudhindra Nath Dutta and held that he was entitled to be paid sum of Rs. 6,135-5-0 ps. out of the compensation so awarded. It may be mentioned that while making the said determination the said learned Judge negatived the contentions of the objectors, who have been held by him to be entitled to the balance of the award amounting to Rs. 45, 189-14-0 ps, that the action is time barred. 5. As the amount so awarded in favour of the said Shri Sudhindra Nath Dutta was not paid so Execution Case No. 1 of 1957 was initiated by him. In the said execution proceeding, the State of West Bengal filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the said proceeding was numbered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1957. In their objection the State Government raised the question of maintainability of the execution proceeding and it was further contended that when the Collector has already paid the amount of compensation to the awardees in terms of the award, the Court cannot direct the Government to pay the amount over again and when such payment has been made in terms of section 31(1) of the Act, so under the 3rd proviso to section 31(2) of the Act, the only way open to the applicants was to recover the amount of compensation awarded from the persons who have actually received such payments. 6. 6. The learned District Judge, Purulia, by his judgment and order dated March 26, 1958 allowed the said Miscellaneous Case No.5 of 1957 and dismissed the said Execution Case No. 1 of 1957, holding the same to be not maintainable against the State of West Bengal. Although the applicant challenged the entire Land Acquisition proceeding to be void for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of notice in section 9(3) of the Act and the said fact was found to be duly sustained and established yet the learned District Judge found such admitted defect or default to be not substantial enough to warrant the conclusion that the Special Land Acquisition Officer acted negligently and he, agreeing with the contentions of the State of West Bengal further held that the proceedings, in view of the provisions in section 31 (1) read with the 3rd provisio to section 31(2) was not maintainable. 7. It is against such determination Mr. Mitter argued in this appeal that in view of the admitted finding of the learned District Judge that there was no proper or due service of special notice of fifteen days in terms of section 9(3) of the Act, the impugned judgment or order should not have been made. This argument of Mr. Mitter seems to be substantial Section 9 envisages that the date of hearing or consideration of objections and the time lag between that date and the date of notice must be 15 days and the scheme of the Act makes service of such notice on an occupier imperative. In this case admittedly such notice was served but the period of notice fell short. The time granted by the said notice was only two days so there was admittedly a non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Statute. Mr. Chandidas Raichowdury, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent, State of West Bengal could not contend otherwise. He of course contended that the third proviso to section 31(2) of the Act provided the appellants a right to recover the award money from the other awardees when admittedly such payment has been made to them and in that view of the matter the execution proceeding was not maintainable. This argument of Mr. Raichowdhury seems to us to be of no assistance or avail. This argument of Mr. Raichowdhury seems to us to be of no assistance or avail. Section 31(1) of the Act requires that after making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested and entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless presented by some one or more of the contigencies as mentioned in section 31(2) of the Act. The said sub-section provides that if the persons interested do not receive the award, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of the same, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted subject to the three provisions as contained thereunder. It is an admitted position in this case that on receipt of the notice dated April 21, 1952 inviting objections to be filed on or by April 23, 1952 (which fell short of the statutory period) and before the award was drawn up and signed on May 31, 1952, a representation was made by Sudhindra Nath Dutta through his Solicitor' and the said letter was duly received by the Collector. Thus the said notice of April 21, 1952 was served on the said Shri Dutta as he was a person interested and at least on that date the Collector was aware of Sudhindra's interest. So when the letter from Sudhindra Nath Dutta's Solicitor was duly received by him, the Collector, in exercise of his powers under section 31 of the Act should not have made payment of the compensation so awarded to the respective awardees. His action in replying the letter of Sudhindra's Solicitor on June 11, 1952, i.e. after drawing up the order was also not proper. As the notice dated April 21, 1952 did not provide for the days as required by the Statute so the same should be deemed to be irregular and insufficient, as a result whereof it should be held that no proper opportunity was received by the applicants to make effective representation in the proceeding and as such also it must be held that the Collector did not act according to law and further he did not follow the procedure. Any findings contrary to the findings as mentioned herein before and as made in the impugned judgment and order in our view is thus unauthorised and as such this appeal should succeed. 8. Before concluding we must also record that in reply to Mr. Raichowdhury's contentions that when the award money has been paid to the awardees, the right, if any, of the applicant was to file a. suit against the said awardees and to recover their claim. Mr. Mitter contended otherwise and in support of his contentions he relied on the case of (1) The Deputy Collector, Coconada v. The Maharaja of Pittapur, reported in (1926) I.L.R.49 Madras 519. In that case the Deputy Collector who acquired lands for the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, determined the amount of compensation payable, apportioned the same among the claimants and paid there shares under his award. A reference was made to the District Court at the instance of a claimant objecting to the apportionment and the District Court increased the share of compensation in favour of the objecting claimant holding that the award of the District Court was a direction that the Government should pay each claimant the amount awarded to him under its award, and that the claimant, who obtained an increased share under its award, is entitled to recover the amount from the Government by filing an application in the District Court for execution against the Government. The Government is bound to deposit in the District Court the amount of compensation awarded by the Referring Officer for distribution according to the award of the District Court, and the increased amount, if any, awarded by the Court; the Government should not throw on the claimant the risk and burden of recovering the compensation from some other party to whom the Government bas wrongfully paid it. Since we have earlier held that in the facts of the case payment of the award money without the due opportunity to the applicant's by the Collector was wrongful, we hold that the applicants should not be relegated to a suit to recover the money so paid from the said awardees. Since we have earlier held that in the facts of the case payment of the award money without the due opportunity to the applicant's by the Collector was wrongful, we hold that the applicants should not be relegated to a suit to recover the money so paid from the said awardees. It was and is the duty of the State Government to pay the compensation as awarded to the applicants and if so advised and if such right is not otherwise barred, they in their turn can recover the amount in question from the award money as paid to the awardees. 9. The appeal thus succeeds on all points and the same is allowed. But we however make no order as to costs. Let the records be sent down at an early date. Sengupta, J. : I agree.