Skip to content


The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. S. Venkatarama Iyer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1949)2MLJ245
AppellantThe Revenue Divisional Officer
RespondentS. Venkatarama Iyer
Cases ReferredVenkatarama Iyer v. Collector of Tanjore I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - a claimant who had failed to mention the amount of his claim in the memorandum filed by him before the collector in pursuance of the notice issued to him under section 9 of the indian land acquisition act sought to make good the omission by presenting an application to the judge under section 25(3) praying that for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed therewith the court may be pleased to allow that there was sufficient reason for the omission. in ordering the petition, the learned subordinate judge however observed that it was the duty of the revenue divisional officer, where a claimant failed to specify the amount of compensation, to draw his attention to the omission and require him to supply it......therewith the court may be pleased to allow that there was sufficient reason for the omission. the learned subordinate judge ordered the petition, and i am not prepared in revision to interfere. in ordering the petition, the learned subordinate judge however observed that it was the duty of the revenue divisional officer, where a claimant failed to specify the amount of compensation, to draw his attention to the omission and require him to supply it. to this observation the learned government pleader takes exception on the ground that there is no provision anywhere in the act casting any such obligation on the officer. the learned government pleader seems to be right in his submission. true, there are observations of curgenven, j., in venkatarama iyer v. collector of tanjore i.l.r......
Judgment:

Raghava Rao, J.

A claimant who had failed to mention the amount of his claim in the memorandum filed by him before the Collector in pursuance of the notice issued to him under Section 9 of the Indian Land Acquisition Act sought to make good the omission by presenting an application to the Judge under Section 25(3) praying that for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed therewith the Court may be pleased to allow that there was sufficient reason for the omission. The learned Subordinate Judge ordered the petition, and I am not prepared in revision to interfere. In ordering the petition, the learned Subordinate Judge however observed that it was the duty of the Revenue Divisional Officer, where a claimant failed to specify the amount of compensation, to draw his attention to the omission and require him to supply it. To this observation the learned Government pleader takes exception on the ground that there is no provision anywhere in the Act casting any such obligation on the officer. The learned Government Pleader seems to be right in his submission. True, there are observations of Curgenven, J., in Venkatarama Iyer v. Collector of Tanjore I.L.R. (1930) Mad. 921 to be found at page 936 which support the view expressed by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is difficult however to find any warrant in the statute or on general legal principle for such a view. The civil revision petition is dismissed, but, in the circumstances without costs.


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