P.S.B. BOMMANNA CHETTIAR AND ANR. Vs. THE PROVINCE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF SALEM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question involved in these two appeals is the same and that is whether for the purposes of the Madras Town -Planning Act, an acquisition can be said to have been when an award was passed or only when possession was actually taken in pursuance of the award. A notification of the intended acquisition was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on the 6th September, 1932. An award was made by the Collector on the 26th August, 1935, and possession was taken on the 18th December, 1936. Under Section 34 of the Madras Town Planning Act, if the land is not acquired within three years from the date of the notification, it (the notification) shall cease to have effect as a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. It is common ground that if the land was acquired only on the date when possession was taken, more than three years had elapsed from the date of the notification and the notification will cease to have effect as a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and the acquisition will be bad. In that case the plaintiffs' suits for recovery of possession must be decreed. The trial Court held agreeing with the plaintiffs' contention that an acquisition under the Act can be said to have occurred only when possession was taken under Section 16 of the Act. The suits were therefore decreed except as to damages claimed by the plaintiff. On appeal the District Judge held that the acquisition became complete when the award was passed and that having been made within three years of the 6th of September 1932, the acquisition was valid. The appeals were allowed and the suits were dismissed.

(2.) IN this Court it is urged by Mr. Ramaswami Aiyangar, the learned advocate for the appellant, that the notification was really on the 10th August, 1932, as that is the date which the notification bears. It is not the date of the order of the Government proposing to acquire the land in question that is material, but it is the date when it is actually notified. If, for instance, the order of the Government dated 10th August, 1932, was never published, it could not be said that there was a notification under Section 6. Hence I agree with the Courts below that the relevant date is the 6th September, 1932, when the order of the Government was actually published in the Fort St. George Gazette.

(3.) THEN comes the proviso in the following words: