ORDER : 1. Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in the present matters, therefore, they are clubbed together, heard together, and decided finally by this common order. 2. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed in P.T.T. Case Nos. 01/2022, 2/2022, 3/2022, and 04/2022 dated 17.02.2023, whereby the applications moved by the petitioner under Section 17(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1957’) seeking permission to deposit the amount of compensation with the tribunal were allowed, but at the same time, the learned tribunal in the concluding paragraph observed that the amount, which would be deposited shall carry interest @ 5% per annum from the date of the notification i.e. 27.11.2009 till the date of deposit. 3. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a power-generating company. The petitioner company in order to establish a Coal Mining Project expressed its desire to acquire the land and the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, in the exercise of the power conferred by Section 4(1) of the Act, 1957 issued a public notice. Thereafter, the Central Government vide notification dated 03.06.2009 issued another notice under Section 7(1) of the Act, 1957 showing its intention to acquire the land area ad-measuring 2094.89 hectares. Notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1957 was issued on 05.12.2009 by the Central Government. After completion of the proceedings of land acquisition, notices were issued to the beneficiaries by the petitioner on 15.07.2011, 06.08.2011 and 09.08.2011 respectively in different cases, whereby the beneficiaries were informed to submit relevant documents within 10 days for payment of compensation. The notice was published in the local newspaper on 10.03.2016. Another notice was issued on 19.02.2021 and beneficiaries were granted 15 days’ time to submit relevant documents and to collect the compensation. On 31.07.2021 and 20.10.2021 final notice was published. The respondents did not come forward to collect the compensation amount despite repeated notices; therefore, an application under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1957 was moved before the District Judge – cum – Part Time Tribunal. 4. Notices were issued to the respondents, thereafter, the learned tribunal vide order dated 17.02.2023 allowed the applications moved by the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation. 4. Notices were issued to the respondents, thereafter, the learned tribunal vide order dated 17.02.2023 allowed the applications moved by the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to deposit the amount of compensation. The tribunal in the concluding paragraph held that the amount, which would be deposited by the petitioner shall carry an interest component of 5% from the date of notification i.e. 27.11.2009 till the date of deposit. 5. The petitioner in these petitions has challenged the concluding part, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit compensation along with 5% interest. 6. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that in compliance with the order passed by the learned tribunal dated 17.02.2023, the petitioner has already deposited the compensation amount, but the interest part has not been deposited. He would further submit that there is no provision in Section 17(2) of the Act, 1957 conferring power with the tribunal to pass any order with regard to payment of interest on the amount of compensation, and thus, the learned tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction. He would also submit that Section 17 of the Act, 1957 is ministerial in nature and the concerned tribunal ought to have accepted the amount of compensation. It is also contended that for enhancement of the compensation and interest part, the private respondents have already moved applications before the tribunal according to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, 1957 and the same are pending consideration. 7. On the other hand, Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Bharat. Mr. Jha would submit that the petition in the present form particularly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. He would vehemently argue that in the present matters, the order has been passed by the District Judge – cum – Part Time Tribunal. It is also contended that any order passed by the Civil Court or the District Court would be amenable to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He would argue that the respondents are poor villagers and they are entitled to get interest as provided under the Act, 1957 from the date of issuance of notification. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jogendrasinhgji Vikaysinhji vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2015) 9 SCC 1 . 8. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jogendrasinhgji Vikaysinhji vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2015) 9 SCC 1 . 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 9. In the matter of Jogendrasinhgji Vikaysinhji (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the conclusions which read as under:- “45. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to summarise our conclusions as follows:- (A) Whether a letters patent appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge that has travelled to him from the other tribunals or authorities, would depend upon many a facet. The Court fee payable on a petition to make it under Article 226 or Article 227 or both, would depend upon the rules framed by the High Court. (B) The order passed by the civil court is only amenable to be scrutinized by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is different from Article 226 of the Constitution and as per the pronouncement in Radhey Shyam (supra), no writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. (C) The writ petition can be held to be not maintainable if a tribunal or authority that is required to defend the impugned order has not been arrayed as a party, as it is a necessary party. (D) Tribunal being or not being party in a writ petition is not determinative of the maintainability of a letters patent appeal.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the petition under Articles 226 and 227 both would lie or not depends upon the Rules framed by the High Court. It is also observed that it would depend upon many a facet. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the order passed by the Civil Court is only amenable to be scrutinized by the High Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is different from Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further observed that no writ can be issued against the order passed by the Civil Court and against such order no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. 11. It is further observed that no writ can be issued against the order passed by the Civil Court and against such order no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. 11. In the present case, the matter originated from the award of compensation. The learned District Judge has not exercised any powers contemplated in the Civil Procedure Code or any other relevant laws, but he has exercised power conferred under the Act of 1957 which is entirely different from the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge has exercised power as Part Time Tribunal to decide the issues with regard to payment of compensation, its disbursement, its deposit, enhancement etc., therefore, in the opinion of this Court a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable against any order passed by Part Time Tribunal while exercising any power conferred under Section 17 of the Act, 1957. 12. Section 17 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 reads as under:- “17. Payment of compensation.— (1) Any compensation payable under this Act may be tendered or paid to the persons interested entitled thereto, and the Central Government shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in sub-section (2). Section 17 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 reads as under:- “17. Payment of compensation.— (1) Any compensation payable under this Act may be tendered or paid to the persons interested entitled thereto, and the Central Government shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in sub-section (2). (2) If the persons interested entitled thereto shall not consent to receive it or if there be any dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount of compensation or the title to receive it or the apportionment thereof, the Central Government shall deposit the amount of compensation with the Tribunal: Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: 1[Provided further that every person who claims to be an interested person (whether such person has been admitted to be interested or not) including the person referred to in the preceding proviso shall be entitled to prefer a claim for compensation before the Tribunal: Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to prefer any such claim before the Tribunal.] (3) When the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited as required by this section, the Central Government shall be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of five per centum per annum from the time the compensation became due until it shall have been so paid or deposited.” 13. From a bare reading of Section 17 of the Act, 1957, it is apparent that the tribunal only has the power to receive compensation from the Central Government and nothing more. It is provided in Section 17(2) that if the person interested entitled to get compensation fails to give his consent, the amount of compensation or the apportionment thereof shall be deposited by the Central Government with the tribunal. From the language employed under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1957 it is clear that the tribunal works as a Bank and it only has the right/authority to receive the amount of compensation from the Central Government. 14. There is no provision under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1957 which empowers the tribunal to impose any interest on the amount of compensation. 14. There is no provision under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1957 which empowers the tribunal to impose any interest on the amount of compensation. From the language of Section 17(2) and the order passed by the learned tribunal, it is quite vivid that the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction while awarding interest on the amount of compensation in favour of the respondents. 15. The respondents have already moved applications for enhancement of compensation and interest; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the last part of the orders impugned are unsustainable in the eyes of the law, therefore, that part of the orders whereby the learned tribunal has awarded interest of 5% is hereby set-aside. The rest part of the order shall remain intact. 16. With the aforesaid observation(s), the petitions stand allowed. 17. However, the respondents would be at liberty to approach the authority concerned for early disposal of their cases.