Judgment :- 1. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 8 in O. P. (Electricity) No. 68/83 are the revision petitioners. 2. The order under challenge is one passed by the District Judge under S.16(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. for short'The Act'. The operative portion of the order reads: - "In the result, I find that respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 8 are together entitled to a 3/4th share and that the 9th respondent is entitled to a 1/4th share available as compensation". 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argue that the 9th respondent is not entitled to any share much less 1/4th share in the compensation. His further argument is that there is no such person as T. Devaki, the 9th respondent in the O. P. (who is the second respondent herein) entitled to get a share, in the compensation. Nonetheless the court below has awarded 1/4 share in the compensation to the said respondent. The order therefore is one passed without jurisdiction and hence liable to be interfered with under S.115 C.P.C. the learned counsel submits. 4. A reference to sub-s. 5 of S.16 with the proviso thereto is relevant in the context. It reads:216(1) (5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-s. (3), or sub-s.(4) shall be final: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same". Sub-s. 5 provides that every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-s. 4 (sub-s. 3 is left out as it has no application here) shall be final. Sub-s. 4 reads: "4. Sub-s. 5 provides that every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-s. 4 (sub-s. 3 is left out as it has no application here) shall be final. Sub-s. 4 reads: "4. If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-s. (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it". The District Judge under this sub-section has the power to determine the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation, the Electricity Board would pay into his court; or as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in the said compensation; provided the persons interested are given an opportunity of being heard. Such decisions of the District Judge, by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-s. 5, shall be final. 5. The proviso to sub-s. 5 however, says that the finality attributed to the order passed by the District judge under sub-s. 4 would not affect the right of any person to recover by suit, the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the Board as per the order of the District Judge under sub-s. 4 from the person who has received the same. It is thus clear from the proviso that the order determining the dispute under sub-s. 4 by the District Judge regarding the persons who are entitled to the compensation can incidentally be challenged by instituting suit for recovery of the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the Board pursuant to the order of the District Judge under sub-s. 4, from the person who has received the same. That means persons aggrieved by the order of, the District Judge under sub-s. 4 in regard to distribution of the compensation among the claimants have the alternative remedy of instituting suit for redressal of their grievances. 6. The proviso providing the alternative remedy, in my judgment, inhibits a revision under S.115 C. P. C. against the order of the District Judge under sub-s. 4 of S.16. I am fortified in this view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai (1987 (1) K.L.T. 53 (SC)). The revision therefore is disposed of as not maintainable. It is made clear that nothing stated herein would prejudice the rights of the petitioners to challenge the order under attack by instituting a suit as provided for under the proviso to sub-s. 5 of S.16 of the Act.