STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ZULFEQUAR HUSSAIN ABDUL HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State under the Land Acquisition Act and it arises under the following circumstances:

(2.) ONE Abdul Qayoom Mahomed Ali of Bombay purchased Survey No. 9 at Aurangabad situated very near the Station under exh. 34 on Khurdad 26, 1351 F. (in or about 1942). Survey No. 9 measures 11 acres 31 gunthas. A notification was published on June 11, 1959, under Section 3 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act for acquiring a piece out of it, measuring 3 acres 12 gunthas, for constructing a low -income group rest house at Aurangabad. The land is situated on the main road from the city to the station. The notification under Section 5 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (s. 6 of our Land Acquisition Act) was published on August 3, 1959. The land seems to have been entered in the revenue record in the name of Abdul Qayoom Abdul Rahim. Attempts were made therefore to issue notices to the purchaser but they failed. Eventually the notice was affixed on a prominent portion of the land. Before the notification under Section 5 was made, respondent No. 1, Zulfequar Hussain, made an application, exh. 53, on July 30, 1959, objecting to the acquisition. Apparently no notice seems to have been taken of this application as his name did not appear in the revenue record. In this application he had stated that he was the owner and in possession of the land. In a later paragraph he stated that besides the applicant, there were other shareholders in the land. Thereafter he made application, exh. 55, on January 16, 1960, making his claim for compensation of Rs. 33,000 as the minimum compensation to which he would be entitled. He was replied that as the Land Acquisition Officer had already framed his award, no notice could be taken of his application. Eventually the Land Acquisition Officer published the award on February 17, 1960, valuing the land at Rs. 4,840 per acre i.e. Re. 1 per sq. yard. As respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were claiming title to their property and they also asked for a reference, the Land Acquisition Officer made the reference both tinder Section 15 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (s. 18 of the India Act), and Section 25 of that Act (s. 30 of the India Act), both regarding quantum as well as apportionment of the compensation.

(3.) THE two issues in this reference therefore were whether respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were owners of land in dispute and secondly whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate. Both these issues the learned Judge answered in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The State has come in appeal.