Skip to content


Ramalakshmi Vs. the Collector of Kistna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1893)ILR16Mad321
AppellantRamalakshmi
RespondentThe Collector of Kistna
Cases ReferredTaylor v. The Collector of Purnea I.L.R.
Excerpt:
land acquisition act - act x of 1870, section 55--reference by a collector--jurisdiction of a district court. - 1. as observed by the calcutta high court in taylor v. the collector of purnea i.l.r. 14 cal. 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, viz., 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. 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 Cal. 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, viz., 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. The costs of this reference will be the costs of the cause.


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