KHAN BAHADUR CHOWKARAN KELOTH MAMMAD KEYI Vs. THE PROVINCE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF SOUTH KANARA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 1936 the Government of Madras proposed to acquire a small strip of land for the purpose of making a foot path by the side of a Hindu cremation ground at Kesargod. The total area only measured 13 cents of an acre. On the 26th August, 1936, a notification was published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and on the 26th January, 1937, a notification was published under Section 6 of the Act. The appellant, who was the owner of the land, objected to the acquisition and after the publication of the notification under Section 6, he persisted in his objection. He succeeded in persuading the Collector of South Kanara that the acquisition was not necessary. The result was that the Government changed its mind and passed an order which said:

(2.) ON the 18th July, 1938, the appellant filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Kesargod for a declaration that the acquisition was unlawful on the ground that as the Government had decided to withdraw from the acquisition it could not proceed without fresh notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The District Munsiff dismissed the suit and this decision was concurred in by the District Judge of South Kanara on appeal. The plaintiff then appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., who agreed with the Courts below. The present appeal is from the Judgment of the learned Judge under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) IT is very regrettable that so much judicial time should have been taken up on such a trumpery matter. Even if the law had been on the side of the appellant, it could only have meant re -notification under Sections 4 and 6 with waste of time and unnecessary expenditure of money. The acquisition could not have been avoided. The mentality of the appellant is indeed difficult to understand. The only satisfaction is that he can be required to pay for his bovine obstinacy in costs.