JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the backdrop of the following facts : Hansraj, husband of the petitioner was holding 9 bighas of land in Chak 29 G.B.A. Tehsil Padampur. On his death the land devolved on the petitioner. This land was acquired by the State Govt. for respondent No. 3 in 1978 for temporary occupation under the provisions of Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Respondent No. 3 used the land to manufacture bricks. After the completion of the work the land was handed over to the petitioner, but it was not levelled. Prior to handing over the land to the petitioner, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer had been paid to her. The petitioner made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer either to get the land levelled or to order for the payment of the charges required for the purpose of levelling the same. The Land Acquisition Officer after hearing both the parties vide order dated 6-1-90 awarded Rs. 93,300/- as compensation to the petitioner for the damage done to the land. This award was sent by him to the Collector of the District who reduced the amount of award and approved for Rs. 59,700/- only. 2. The petitioner's case is that the respondents have not paid anything to her as yet against the award dated 6-1-90 and further that the order of compensation was not required to be sent to the Collector for approval and the Collector's order of approval for As. 59,700/is without jurisdiction. It has been prayed that the respondents be directed to make payment of As. 93,300/- with interest. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it is not disputed that the petitioner's land was acquired for temporary use under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is averred that the Land Acquisition Officer had passed an order granting Rs. 93,300/- as compensation to the petitioner, but the Collector of the District has given approval for Rs. 59,700/only and the petitioner is not entitled to more than Rs. 59,700/-. It is pleaded that the Collector had jurisdiction to reduce the amount. It is averred that the Land Acquisition Officer had passed an order granting Rs. 93,300/- as compensation to the petitioner, but the Collector of the District has given approval for Rs. 59,700/only and the petitioner is not entitled to more than Rs. 59,700/-. It is pleaded that the Collector had jurisdiction to reduce the amount. It is also pleaded that the award for levelling the land ought not to have been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as there was no order of such payment in the agreement. It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Mr. Sharma contended that the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is covered by Section 36(2) of the Land Acquisition Act but the Collector had no jurisdiction to reduce amount of compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. His contention was that the word 'Collector' used in Section 36 of the Act means the Land Acquisition Officer. Pointing out that in the reply para Nos. 8 and 9 of the writ petition have been admitted, he argued that the respondents have not challenged the right of the petitioner to get compensation for the damage done to the land. He contended that there was no term in the agreement about the compensation to be paid for the damage to the land, and therefore, the only course open for getting the compensation was to apply to the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 36 of the Act. 5. Mr. Bhansali, on the other hand, contended that the Land Acquisition Officer had no power to grant compensation after passing the award under Section 35 of the Act as he had become functus officio on passing the award dated 6-1-90. His further submission was that the word 'Collector' used in Section 36 of the Act should be read as the Collector of the District, and not the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the award of compensation needed the approval of the Collector. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. The Land Acquisition Officer awards compensation for the temporary occupation of arable land under Section 35 of the Act. It is not correct to say that by making the award under Section 35 the Land Acquisition Officer ceases to have power to deal with an application under Section 36 of the Act. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. The Land Acquisition Officer awards compensation for the temporary occupation of arable land under Section 35 of the Act. It is not correct to say that by making the award under Section 35 the Land Acquisition Officer ceases to have power to deal with an application under Section 36 of the Act. Section 36(1) provides that on payment of compensation or on execution of such agreement or on making a reference under Section 35, the Collector may enter upon and take possession of the land, and use or permit the use thereof. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 36 provides that on expiration of the term, the Collector shall make or tender to the person interested compensation for the damage if any done to the land and not provided for by the agreement and shall restore the land to the persons interested therein. 7. A reading of sub-sec. (2) makes it clear that on the expiration of the term the Collector is empowered to award compensation for the damage done to the land if there was no condition for the same in the agreement. In the instant case, it is not the case for the respondents that there was a term in the agreement itself for the grant of compensation for the damage if any done to the land. Since there was no term in the agreement to that effect, the Land Acquisition Officer was well within his powers under sub-sec. (2) of Section 36 of the Act to award compensation to the petitioner for the damage done to the land. 8. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Bhansali that the word 'Collector' appearing sub-sec. (2) of Section 36 should be read as the 'Collector' of the District. A reading of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act make it clear that the 'Collector' used in the Act means the Land Acquisition Officer. Section 3(c) defines Collector in the following manner : "(c) the expression "Collector" means the Collector of a district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act." It is obvious that a (sic) wherever word 'Collector' has been used in the Act, it means the person who discharges the functions of Collector under the Act. In part II of the Act i.e. from Section 4 to Section 17, the word "Collector" has been used and the "Collector" is the person who functions as Land Acquisition Officer. Similarly in Section 35 or Section 36 also the word "Collector" has been used for the Land Acquisition Officer who acts under the Act. There cannot be different meaning of the word 'Collector' in Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. 9. The Land Acquisition Officer while acting as such had awarded compensation under sub-sec. (2) of Section 36. There is no provision in the Act which requires the approval of the Collector of the District to the order of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. As such the order of compensation passed by Land Acquisition Officer becomes final. It can be challenged only in Court as per procedure of Section 37 of the Act. The note of approval recorded by the Collector of the District on the order of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was obviously without jurisdiction. The Collector of the District had no jurisdiction to interfere in the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. Since in the reply the facts contained in para Nos. 8 and 9 of the writ petition have been admitted, there is hardly any scope to contend that the petitioner had no right to claim compensation for the damage to the land. 11. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 93,300/- as compensation within 4 weeks, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest . 12% p.a. from the date of filing the writ petition till the date of payment.Petition allowed. *******