RANCHHODLALJI GOSWAMI Vs. ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the decision of the Joint Judge of Ahmeda-bad. The claimant Goswami Ranchhodlalji was the owner of a piece of land let out to charcoal dealers and the Municipality required upwards of 590 square yards of it for road widening. Accordingly the requisite notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was duly issued on July 7, 1936, by publication in the " Bombay Government Gazette," The next step was this : on or about May 31, 1938, a notice under Section 9 of the Act was sent by registered post to the claimant so that he could make his claim for compensation. The claimant is a religious head and guru and he does not deal himself with business affairs : but has a manager for that purpose. The notice, sent to the claimant by registered post was addressed to him at his residence ; where the receipt for it was signed by his clerk, who passed on the notice to the claimant's manager. In the circumstances to which I shall presently refer; no step was taken upon that notice, and in effect the time ran out and the claimant-appellant's claim, for compensation went by default.

(2.) MR. R. M. Shah for the claimant-appellant has raised two points : first it is said that the notice under Section 9 was not properly served, and secondly, if we should determine that#its service was validly effected ; then that under Section 25 sufficient reason is shown in the circumstances of the case why the claimant-appellant omitted to make his claim, and that accordingly he is entitled to the larger sum of compensation found by the learned Judge in the Court below. This larger sum he would not be entitled to under Section 25 unless he can show " sufficient reason " for his omission.

(3.) THAT raises the second question. The claimant-appellant has filed an affidavit, and there has been no attempt to apply to cross-examine him upon it. THAT evidence stands uncontroverted and is as follows : The appellant is the head of a religious order and the deity is worshipped and offerings are made to it, which occupy the whole of the day, beginning from early morning right up to the evening. During this period the claimant-appellant has to remain in the service of the deity and cannot even touch things that are not washed, nor touch persons who have not taken a bath and put on washed clothes. Further on in his affidavit he says this : The claimant does not mind the management of the estate nor other things connected with the management of the temple. These things are being managed and looked after by his staff. The claimant is not aware of any notice under Section of the Land Acquisition Act beinc served upon him. Then having stated that he had a manager called Ambalal, he continues as follows : The said manager never brought to my notice the matter about acquisition, and never consulted me about the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer. No other person than the mftnager is authorised to receive any notice on my behalf. . . . It was because my then manager never brought to my notice any service of the notice under Section 9 and as the then manager Ambalal looked after Court work, that I could not be present.