Skip to content


Kantimahanti Ramamurthi and anr. Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Harbour Acquisition - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad114
AppellantKantimahanti Ramamurthi and anr.
RespondentSpecial Deputy Collector, Harbour Acquisition
Cases ReferredRaghunath Das v. Collector of Dacca
Excerpt:
- - 5. it was next argued that the declaration is bad and it did not specify the particular plot of land to be acquired and it did not give the details as to the various plots owned by the various owners......of the acquisition was never intended by the legislature to form the subject of inquiry by the land acquisition judge.2. i respectfully agree with that view. the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs: one set for each respondent. the lower court will proceed to dispose of the reference on the points raised in it, according to law.3. as the learned vakil for the petitioner stated that he had not had a proper opportunity to argue all the points he wanted to raise, the case was posted to be spoken to again with the consent of the learned government pleader. i have heard further arguments, but they are all untenable and i have not altered my opinion of the case.4. it was first argued that the acquisition was for the government and the bengal nagpur railway & co., and therefore.....
Judgment:

Krishnan, J.

1. There is no ground for this revision at all. The land acquisition Court gets jurisdiction only on a reference being made to it by the Collector, and its jurisdiction is confined to disposing of the matters so referred. It has no jurisdiction under the Act to consider the legality of the acquisition or of the reference. A very similar case to this is reported in Raghunath Das v. Collector of Dacca [1910] 11 C. L. J. 612 where Mukerjee, J., observes at page 615:

It is clear from Section 18 and other sections which follow it that the question of the legality of the acquisition was never intended by the Legislature to form the subject of inquiry by the land acquisition Judge.

2. I respectfully agree with that view. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs: one set for each respondent. The lower Court will proceed to dispose of the reference on the points raised in it, according to law.

3. As the learned vakil for the petitioner stated that he had not had a proper opportunity to argue all the points he wanted to raise, the case was posted to be spoken to again with the consent of the learned Government Pleader. I have heard further arguments, but they are all untenable and I have not altered my opinion of the case.

4. It was first argued that the acquisition was for the Government and the Bengal Nagpur Railway & Co., and therefore the provisions of Chapter 7 of the Act applied and that the declaration under Section 6 is invalid. This is based on a misapprehension. The Government is acquiring the land itself and paying for it to the owners. The fact that they may hand over a portion of the land afterwards does not matter; the acquisition being for and by the Government, the declaration cannot be objected to. The agreement between the Government and the company is that the former have to provide the land for the latter. Section 43 of the Act makes it quite clear that the provisions of Part VII do not then apply and under Section 6 the acquisition could not be said to be for the company.

5. It was next argued that the declaration is bad and it did not specify the Particular plot of land to be acquired and it did not give the details as to the various plots owned by the various owners. Section 6, CI. (2), says what the declaration should contain and all the requisites were complied with in the declaration. There was a plan prepared which showed the plot to be acquired and it was stated in the declaration when and where that plan could be inspected. The declaration cannot then be objected to.

6. It was next objected that the declaration does not show that any money out of the public revenue has not been attached for the acquisition. It is not contended that the acquisition is going to be made out of any funds other than the public revenue or that there has not been an allotment for this acquisition. It is not necessary that the declaration should on its face show that it is to be made out of the public revenue; Section 6, proviso, does not say so.

7. There is no substance in any of the objections now raised. My order dismissing the civil revision petition with costs will therefore stand.


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