STATE OF HYDERABAD Vs. MOHAMMAD OMERALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Hyderabad wanted to acquire some land for the construction of filter beds for the Water Works Department. Notifications under Sections 3 and 5 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act were published in Jarida No. 44 dated 30th Meher 1352 F. for acquisition of Ac. 2-37 of land forming part of Survey Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 situated in Fatehnagar village, Hyderabad. Subsequently notices under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act were also issued on 22-2-1953. Individual notices also were issued on 14-8-1953 to persons interested and respondent No. 1 was served on 10-9-1953. Respondent No. 1 filed his claim petition on 1-4-55 before the Collector claiming compensation without stating the actual amount of compensation for Ac. 3-00 of wet land at a rate higher than that of dry land. As regards the Remaining portion of Ac. 13-00 of land he stated that owing to the acquisition of Ac. 3-00 of land the said remaining portion of Ac. 13-00 had become uncultivable. He however did not claim any compensation or any amount by way of damages in respect of these Ac. 13-00. He also claimed compensation for three wells at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00for one and at Rs. 1,500.00 each for the other two wells. In the concluding para of his petition he stated that he suffered loss at the rate of Rs. 400.00per year owing to the acquisition of the land by the Department before the notification and prayed that he may be given compensation at the rate claimed by him viz., at 15% increase.

(2.) The Collector gave an award on 28-9-1951 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 750.00 per acre for the acquired area of Ac. 2-37. No compensation was given to the claimant for the wells and there is no order regarding the loss suffered by wrongful acquisition of Ac. 2-37 prior to the notification by the Government. The claimant not satisfied with the award of the Collector, filed a petition on 4-12-1951 under Section 14 of the Act to refer the matter to Court. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court with a statement of the Talukdar under Section 15 of the Act. On a notice issued by the Court, the claimant filed a petition in the form of a plaint on 22-12-1952 specifying the items of his claim. The Court passed an award decreeing the claim of the claimant-plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 19,649-11-8 (O.S.). Hence this First Appeal on behalf of the State and Cross-appeal on behalf of the claimant-respondent.

(3.) Sri Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the Slate, contended that when the claimant in his claim petition before the Collector did not specify the amount of his claim as required under Section 7 of the Act, he could not get a decree for any amount more than what was awarded by the Collector under his award. In this connection, the learned counsel drew our attention to Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Act and the case of Subbanna v. District Labour Officer, East Godavari, AIR 1930 Mad 618. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the Stale is that when the claimant had not put forward his claim for the remaining portion of his land viz., Ac. 13-00 either by way of damages or compensation the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding compensation for the said land at the rate of Rs. 750.00 per acre.