Skip to content


K.T. Muthuveerappa Pillai Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in129Ind.Cas.681; (1930)59MLJ682
AppellantK.T. Muthuveerappa Pillai
RespondentThe Revenue Divisional Officer
Cases ReferredIn Sarat Chandra Gkose v. The Secretary of State
Excerpt:
- - 2. once a proper reference comes before the district judge, his final order on it is an award whether he gives an additional amount or he gives no additional amount or whether the acquisition officer's award is not upheld for some other reason like the one in this case......ssarma v. the collector of sibsagar (1917) 39 i.c. 637 banshidhur marwari v. the secretary of state for india i.l.r. (1926) c. 312 and sarat chandra ghose v. the secretary of state for india i.l.r. (1919) c. 861 are relied on. in the first of these cases the application for reference was made beyond the time allowed. no reference ought to have been made in that case and the district judge refused to make an award on that ground. the high court held properly that no appeal lay. in banshidhur mar-wari v. the secretary of state for india i.l.r. (1926) c. 312 the appeal was against an order refusing to restore a case dismissed for default. in sarat chandra gkose v. the secretary of state for india i.l.r. (1919) c. 861 the order was made under section 49 of the act. all these cases are.....
Judgment:

1. A preliminary objection is taken that the appeal does not lie. It is contended that the order appealed against is not an award and Dembeswar Ssarma v. The Collector of Sibsagar (1917) 39 I.C. 637 Banshidhur Marwari v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1926) C. 312 and Sarat Chandra Ghose v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1919) C. 861 are relied on. In the first of these cases the application for reference was made beyond the time allowed. No reference ought to have been made in that case and the District Judge refused to make an award on that ground. The High Court held properly that no appeal lay. In Banshidhur Mar-wari v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1926) C. 312 the appeal was against an order refusing to restore a case dismissed for default. In Sarat Chandra Gkose v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. (1919) C. 861 the order was made under Section 49 of the Act. All these cases are distinguishable.

2. Once a proper reference comes before the District Judge, his final order on it is an award whether he gives an additional amount or he gives no additional amount or whether the Acquisition officer's award is not upheld for some other reason like the one in this case. Section 27(3) of the Land Acquisition Act supports this conclusion. The words are 'where the award of the Collector is not upheld.' This is such a case the reason being that Government backed out of the acquisition. We overrule the preliminary objection.

3. As to the amount, it is stated before us-and we have no reason to disbelieve the statement-that Rs. 188 represents the total costs incurred including vakalat, stamp, pleader's fee and witness batta. Seeing that out of the ten adjournments which the case received, three were at the instance of the appellant and seven at the instance of the Government, we think Rs. 120 for batta and other expenses and Rs. 20 for pleader's fee, that is Rs. 140, is all the sum to which the appellant is properly entitled. We accordingly modifythe order of the Court below by directing that the respondent will pay Rs. 140 towards the appellant's costs.

4. The respondent will pay the appellant's costs for the appeal.


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