Skip to content


Venkatasami Naidu and ors. Vs. State of Madras Represented by the Collector - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 184 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1964Mad434
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18
AppellantVenkatasami Naidu and ors.
RespondentState of Madras Represented by the Collector
Appellant AdvocateT.V. Balakrishnan and ;N. Vanchinathan, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateAddl. Govt. Pleader
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
- - the award was delivered on 22nd september, 1957. within six weeks therefrom, on 7-10-1967, the appellants addressed a letter to the tahsildar and land acquisition officer expressing their extreme disappointment on the amount fixed us compensation and stating that the amount of compensation, which included the value of the site as well as the standing trees, was very low......filed by the appellants herein for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the tahsildar and land acquisition officer, krishnagiri, to make a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act. the award was delivered on 22nd september, 1957. within six weeks therefrom, on 7-10-1967, the appellants addressed a letter to the tahsildar and land acquisition officer expressing their extreme disappointment on the amount fixed us compensation and stating that the amount of compensation, which included the value of the site as well as the standing trees, was very low. the letter which is in tamil further reads :'as you have not taken into account our objections and the record produced by us and as you have not included the value of the trees, the amount now determined by you is very.....
Judgment:

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.

1. This appeal from the judgment of Jagadisan J., arises out of an application filed by the appellants herein for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Krishnagiri, to make a reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was delivered on 22nd September, 1957. Within six weeks therefrom, on 7-10-1967, the appellants addressed a letter to the Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer expressing their extreme disappointment on the amount fixed us compensation and stating that the amount of compensation, which included the value of the site as well as the standing trees, was very low. The letter which is in tamil further reads :

'As you have not taken into account our objections and the record produced by us and as you have not included the value of the trees, the amount now determined by you is very low. We hereby make known to you that we are not in a position to accept that amount as compensation.'

Reading between the lines one can easily see that the appellants did want proper compensation being awarded to them. One can reasonably draw the inference that they wanted the Tahsildar to take appropriate steps to secure that end as otherwise there will be no meaning for that letter at all. In a recent case, W. A. No. 150 of 1963 (Mad), we had a similar situation. The statement, in a letter to the Tahsildar in that case was that the market value of the land was really higher than what has been estimated. We held that the implication of that letter was that the respondent did not accept the estimate and that he sought for a reference to Court. In the present case the position is even clearer. The appellants have expressly stated that they are not accepting the compensation. We have no hesitation in holding that the implication of this letter is that they have asked for a reference Under Section 18 of the Act.

2. The appeal is allowed and a writ will issue in terms prayed for. The appellants will have their costs here.


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