LAXMANRAO KRISTRAO Vs. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovering nonagricultural assessment levied on the land in suit. The Provincial Government of Bombay is defendant 1 to the suit and the District Local Board of Dharwar is defendant 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) It would appear that the plaintiff is the inamdar of a moiety of the village of Hole Alur in Ron Taluka, and the land in suit, survey No. 161B, forms part of the moiety belonging to the plaintiff. On 16th April 1923, the Government of Bombay passed a resolution deciding to acquire this land for a public purpose, the purpose being the erection of a school to be run by the District Local Board. Acquisition proceedings were started and they ultimately terminated in an award being made on 2nd October 1923. Under this award, a sum of Rs. 1368-80 was paid to one Angadi whose predecessor-in-title became a permanent tenant, the land having been leased to him by a predecessor-in title of the plaintiff. Owing to financial stringency, the school was not built and the Local Board let out the land for nonagricultural purposes. Thereupon non-agricultural assessment was levied upon the Board by Government and it is this assessment which the plaintiff claims in the suit. The plaintiff's case was that no notice was served upon him under Section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore the award was void and his right in the land was not affected either by the acquisition proceedings or by the award which was ultimately made. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he continues to be the inamdar of this land and as such inamdar he is entitled to the assessment levied by Government.

(3.) The facts are few and not in dispute. A public notice under Section 9(1) was issued by the Collector and this notice has to be given stating that Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. It is also not disputed that no notice under Section 9(3) was given by the Collector to the plaintiff. Section 9(3) provides that :