V.S. SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR FOR LAND ACQUISITION, VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment in O. P. No. 51 of 1949 of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore on a reference under Section 19, Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 in respect of acquisition of certain lands belonging to the appellants.

(2.) THE appellants were the owners of lands of the extent of 8 acres and 40 cents in Kalinjur village near Vellore town, North Arcot district. By notifications made in October 1948, and published in the Gazetts, the Government notified the land as one which would be acquired. The land is in proximity with the Katpadi Veliore Cement road. Notices under Sections 9(3) and 10, Land Acquisition Act were issued calling upon the appellants to put in a statement in writing showing the nature of their interest in the lands and the amount of compensation for such interest with particulars and to appeal in person on 30 -11 -1948 before the Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Vellore. The appellants acquired the lands sometime in 1946 for the purpose of construction of a bungalow and putting up an oil mill for which necessary licences were issued by the District Board authorities and plans for the construction of factories were also approved by them. On 30 -11 -1948, appellant 1 made a statement (Ex. B. 3) almost similar in terms to the one made by him earlier before the Revenue Inspector on 17 -8 -1948. Appellant 1 stated that he wanted the land for constructing a bungalow for his own use & for starting an oil mill and therefore he was not then willing to state anything about the rate, for the land. There is a mistake in the English translation of the statement furnished to Court, as the translation roads "Hence 1 am not willing to state anything about the rate for this land", whereas a reading of the original statement in Tamil would show that the word "now" is omitted in the translation and the translation should be "Hence I am not 'now' willing to state anything about the rate for this land".

(3.) NOTICE under Sections 9 and 10 has been duly served and the notice requires that the claimant should state the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation, and, admittedly, the amount of the compensation was not given as required, as the statement made by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer on 30 -11 -1948 shows that he did not give any particulars; but be stated that he was not then willing to state anything about the rate for the land. His attitude, as could be seen from the statement, was that he required the land for the purpose of constructing a bungalow and starting an oil mill, for which he had already obtained the necessary sanctions and licences, and in his view the question of going into compensation did not arise at that stage. He also states in the petition under Section 18 of the Act that he was under the impression that no award would be passed before the representation to the Government was finally disposed of and that he should specify the exact amount of compensation payable to him only in the event of an adverse order being passed and communicated to him by the Government on his above representation, and that having thus not been aware, or made aware, of the correct position the 'bona fide contented himself with stating that his land was, in fact, very valuable.