JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of two writ petitions, No. 180 of 1972 and No. 1361 of 1973. 2. Briefly stated their facts are that for construction of a new Hospital Barmer, the Govt. acquired the plot of land on which the premises of the Hospital now appear to stand. Possession of the land was taken on 27-2-61. Out of this land:- 1. The land measuring 177689 sq. ft. and 3473 sq. Gaz belonged to the petitioner Hukamsingh (who is since then dead) & the Collector that is the Land Acquisition Officer awarded on 29-7 69 the compensation of Rs. 1,27,706 and Rs. 9,945/- respectively, vide petition No. 1890/72. 2. The land measuring 12654 sq. yards belonged to deceased Mohbta and Magna, now represented by the petitioners. The amount of compensation awarded to them on 29.7.69 was Rs. 35,937/- vide petition No. 1361 of 1973. 3. The Collector by virtue of section 31 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act was required to tender the payment of the aforesaid amount and costs to the petitioner and pay the same to them, unless they did not consent to receive it, or there was no person competent to alienate the land, or if there was any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, in which contingencies, the Collector is further required to deposit 'he amount of compensation and costs in the court to which a reference under section 18 thereof would lie. Under rules 27 to 30 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, 1956, the Collector is required to all the persons entitled to receive the amount and if even after his endeavours, no one appears, the amounts `hall be deposited into the Treasury as Revenue Deposit. The Collector that is the Land Acquisition Officer in these cases, neither paid the amount to the petitioners nor did he deposit it in the Treasury or in the Court. 4. Certain persons had made application for reference to the Court which were also rejected by the learned Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners, therefore, in petition No 1890 of 1972 now claim the aforesaid amount of award plus interest from the date of the award to the date of the petition totalling to Rs. 1,56,004 In the petition No. 1361 of 1973, the petitioners besides the compensation awarded, claim interest to the tune of Rs. The petitioners, therefore, in petition No 1890 of 1972 now claim the aforesaid amount of award plus interest from the date of the award to the date of the petition totalling to Rs. 1,56,004 In the petition No. 1361 of 1973, the petitioners besides the compensation awarded, claim interest to the tune of Rs. 5,520/- as interest from the date of the award to the date of the petition. The total amount they claim is Rs. 41,457/-. 5. The petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the State Government and the Land Acquisition Officer to make the aforesaid payments. 6. In its reply, the State has contended that the payment was not made because after the acquisition proceedings were over, it came to their knowledge that the land was in fact a Khalsa land and on the request of the Municipal Board, Farmer, dated 20.10-69, the Collector by his order dated 18-6-70 had allowed its conversion into Abadi land. The State Government is still making efforts to verify whether the land in question did genuinely belong to the petitioners or not. It has also stated that some persons viz Multanmal, Asoolal and Ranamal had also served notices under section 80 C.P.C. claiming that the land belonged to them. It was further stated that in case of the petitioners in petition No. 1890 of 1972, the Income Tax Recovery Officer has attached an amount of Rs. 5722/-. 7. Two persons Sohan Lal and Jaik Chand applied for being impeded as parties but this Court vide its order dated 3-3-74 only allowed them to be heard as intervenors. They had submitted claims before the Land Acquisition Officer, but their claims were disallowed. They applied for a reference to the Court by the Land Acquisition Officer. But the Land Acquisition Officer did not take any action as the record of the case had been submitted to the Government. 8. I have heard Shri Maheshwari for the petitioners and Shri P.C. Sharma for the intervenors and the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate. As respects the intervenors, suffice to say that inspite of a demand made be the petitioners, then were not able to power or show that they had applied for a reference to the Court On the other hand, the Land Acquition Officer in his letter dated 18- 10-73 has denied that the intervenors have made any such applications. Govt. Advocate. As respects the intervenors, suffice to say that inspite of a demand made be the petitioners, then were not able to power or show that they had applied for a reference to the Court On the other hand, the Land Acquition Officer in his letter dated 18- 10-73 has denied that the intervenors have made any such applications. Therefore their case has no basis whatsoever. As regards the facts of the case, there appears no dispute and it is hardly a ground for withholding the payment, that the State Government is still engaged in verifying whether the lane belonged to the petitioners or not ? It is also, it was urged, no concern of the State Government further, Whether any other persons disputed the claim of the petitioner for compensation. The only one question that called for consideration is whether a writ of mandamus can in such a case be issued or not ? In a somewhat similar case, in Balbir v. State, S.B. Civil Writ No. 338 of 1970 Tyagi, J. (now the Chief Justice) issued a writ of mandamus on 2-9-70, directing the State Government to deposit the amount of compensation awarded under section 11 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, in the Civil Court as the matter was pending there under section 18. The Civil Judge was directed to make the payment to the petitioners upon their submitting an adequate security. This was a decision given before the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. The amended Article 226 now 1ay down that except in cases of enforcement of a fundamental right, if a writ is asked for the redress, of any injury, of a substantial nature by reason of any illegality of any provision of the Constitution or and other law, or for the redress of and injury be reason of an illegality in any proceedings order the Constitution or any other law resulting in substantial failure of justice, it cannot be issued if any other remedy for such redress is provided for by or under other law for the time being in force. Petitions pending on 1-2-1977, shall abate, if not covered by the aforesaid provisions. This is no doubt a case of contravention of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and an injury of substantial nature is caused to the petitioners was then an arbitration remedy there available to them ?. 9. Petitions pending on 1-2-1977, shall abate, if not covered by the aforesaid provisions. This is no doubt a case of contravention of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and an injury of substantial nature is caused to the petitioners was then an arbitration remedy there available to them ?. 9. During the course of arguments, it was found that section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 made that Act applicable to statutory arbitrations in so far as it is not inconsistent with the relevant statute. In the "Law of Arbitration" by S.D. Singh, it is stated that an award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act is such an arbitration. Was it then necessary for the petitioners to make an application for making the award a rule of the Court? The learned counsel forth petitioners submitted that the provisions of the Arbitration Act cannot he attracted to the award made under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act because it provided its own machinery for a reference to the Court, which is in-consistent with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. In this connection, he relied upon Distt. Co-operative Federation Ltd. Meerut and another us. Dist. Co-Operative Federatiion Ltd. v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, AIR 1966 All 489 . It was held there that section 46 of the Arbitration Act does not do away with the distinction between an award based on an agreement and a statutory award, and further that the High Court was empowered to issue a writ of mandamus to enforce the award; under the Co-operative Societies Act. Same was the position more or less with respect to the provision of the Land Acquisition Act. According to Raja Harishchandra v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500 , an award made by the Collector is in a sense a decision, inter alia in respect of the amount of compensation which should be paid to the person interested in the property acquired, but legally the award cannot be treated as a decision; it is in law an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of property under acquisition. In face of this pronouncement, an award of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be considered an arbitration and section 46 of the Arbitration Act has no application. 10. It was next considered whether a remedy by way of suit was not available. In face of this pronouncement, an award of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be considered an arbitration and section 46 of the Arbitration Act has no application. 10. It was next considered whether a remedy by way of suit was not available. In Nilkanth Ganesh Vaik v. The Collector of Thana, (1897) ILR 22 Bom. 802 the claimant applied to enforce payment of the amount of award, but no payment was made. It was observed that neither under the Land Acquisition Act of 1870 nor under the Act No. of 1894, and proceeding for the enforcement of award was provided & the ordinary mode of enforcing such an obligation was by way of a suit.The Limitation Act of 1906, vide article 17, provided one year's period for a suit against the Govt. for compensation for land acquired for public purposes. But the Limitation Act of 1963, has omitted this article leaving such suits to be governed by the new residuary article 113. It follows therefore that a suit to obtain compensation for compulsory acquisition is contemplated under the law and does provide an alternative remedy for the redress of the injury caused by a contravention of the provisions of an enactment. 11. To meet this difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioners cited Jiwandas v. Smt. Narbada Bai, AIR 1959 Cal 519 , wherein it was held that unless an award was shown to be a nullity, the plaintiff could not get any relief by way of a suit. But he mainly relies upon a Division Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in Nirmal Khosala v. Union of India, AIR 1976 P & H 22 in which mandamus was issued to enforce the payment of compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because no person could be deprived of its property without the authority of law as enacted in section 294(1) of the Govt of India Act, 1935 (equal to Article 311) of the Constitution). It follows from this decision that the petitioners are correct in contending that the non-petitioners have violated their fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution by disregarding the mandatory provisions of section 31 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act and there was no need for them in such a case to seek the alternative remedy by way of a suit for the recovery of the aforesaid amount, and their petitions do not abate. 12. Consequently, these petitions are accepted and it is directed that a writ of mandamus shall be issued in both the petitions against both the respondents to make to the petitioner the payment which is due under sections 31 and 34 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act forthwith. The respondents shall, however, withhold the payment of the amount in petition No. 1890 of 1972, which has been attached by the Income Fix Recovery Officer. The costs of these petitions shall be Rs. 300/- in each case which shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioners. 13. Before I leave this case, I would like to draw the attention of the Govt. in Finance Department that the payment in the case has been delayed for eight years by now and the State is being saddled with interest and costs which could be avoided by prompt action and it is for their consideration whether they would like to inquire into the matter and take appropriate action.Writs accepted. *******