REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER Vs. S VENKATARAMA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A claimant who had failed to mention the amount of his claim in the memo filed by him before the Collector in pursuance of the notice issued to him under Section 9, Land Acquisition Act sought to make good the omission by presenting an application to the Judge under Section 25(3) praying that for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed therewith the Court may be pleased to allow that there was sufficient reason for the omission. The learned Subordinate Judge ordered the petition, and I am not prepared in revision to interfere. In ordering the petition, the learned Subordinate Judge, however, observed that it was the duty of the Revenue Divisional Officer, where a claimant failed to specify the amount of compensation, to draw his attention to the omission and require him to supply it. To this observation the learned Government Pleader takes exception on the ground that there is no provision anywhere in the Act casting Page 1 of 2 Revenue Divisional Officer vs. S. Venkatarama Iyer (22.04.1949 - MADHC) 6/19/2007 any such obligation on the officer. The learned Government Pleader seems to be right in his submission. True, there are observations of Curgenven J. in Venkatarama Iyer v. Collector of Tanjore, 53 Mad. 921 : A.I.R. (17) 1930 Mad. 836), to be found at p. 936 which support the view expressed by the learned Subordinate Judge. It is difficult however to find any warrant in the statute or in general legal principle for such a view. The civil revision petition is dismissed, but, in the circumstances without costs.