Skip to content


Ummanedi Ramalakshmi Vs. the Collector of Kistna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1893)3MLJ188
AppellantUmmanedi Ramalakshmi
RespondentThe Collector of Kistna
Cases ReferredTaylor v. The Collector of Purnea
Excerpt:
- 1. as observed by the calcutta high court in taylor v. the collector of purnea, i. l. r 14 c 423 the collector is not competent to refer, and the judge is not competent to decide, any question arising under section 55 of the act. the act confers only a special and limited jurisdiction to the judge to deal with two classes of questions, via, the award of compensation, and its apportionment among several claimants. when there is a difference of opinion as to whether the whole house should be taken up by government or not, the proper course for the party is to institute a regular suit.2. we are of opinion that the view of the judge is correct.3. the costs of this reference will be the costs of the cause.
Judgment:

1. As observed by the Calcutta High Court in Taylor v. The Collector of Purnea, I. L. R 14 C 423 the Collector is not competent to refer, and the judge is not competent to decide, any question arising under Section 55 of the Act. The Act confers only a special and limited jurisdiction to the judge to deal with two classes of questions, via, the award of compensation, and its apportionment among several claimants. When there is a difference of opinion as to whether the whole house should be taken up by Government or not, the proper course for the party is to institute a regular suit.

2. We are of opinion that the view of the judge is correct.

3. The costs of this reference will be the costs of the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //