DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. RAJAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of an award passed by the Arbitrator under Sections of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. 1952, in respect of land bearing S. Nos. 250, 251, 252, 254 and 256 of Guddimalkapur village, taluk urban Hyderabad District. Challenging the correctness of the award dated 6-9-76 the District Collector Hyderabad, has filed C.M.A. No. 665/76 and it is confined only to the question of extent of the land acquired under the above mentioaed Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The owners of. the land have filed C.M.A. No. 278/77 challenging the correctness of the same award in so far as their claim for higher compensation was negatived by the arbitrator.

(2.) The land in S.Nos. 250, 251, 252, 254 and 256 of Guddimalkapur village was first requisitioned under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 in the year 1963, Subsequently under Notification dated 4-3-70, the same extent of land which was earlier requisitioned in the year 1963 was acquired by the Collector, Hyderabad. The acquisition was to provide accommodation for Artillery Centre, Golconda:

(3.) The extent of land which had been requisitioned in the year 1963 was mentioned as Ac. 31-39 guntas. The provisions of the above mentioned Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, provided for the issuance of two notices before the property can cither be requisitioned or acquired. Sections of the above Act requires the Competent Authority to call upon the owner Or any other who may be in possession of the property to show cause within 15 days from the date of service of notice on him why the property should not be requisitioned. If after considering any cause *hown by the owner or any person interested in the land, the competent authority is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to requisition the property it may make an order requisitioning the property and take possession thereof. In this case the competent authority has issued notice as required by law calling upon the owners to show cause why an extent of Ac. 31-39 guntas belonging to them and situated within the above mentioned S: Nos. of Guddimalkapur village should not be requisitioned. Subsequently it is the same extent of land that has been requisitioned by the competent authority. Thereafter in the year 1970 the competent authority had issued Ex. B7 dated 16-2-70 calling upon the owners to show cause why the requisitioned property should not be acquired. Under Ex. B8. of March, 1970, the owners had been informed that the competent authority has acquired Ac. 31-39 guntas of land situated in the above S.Nos. belonging to the owners. From the above it is clear that extent of land acquired by the Competent Authority from the owners in the year 1970 was the same asthe extent of land that was requisitioned in the year 1963 and that was the exact extent of Ac. 31-39 guntas. But before the Arbitrator it was argued by the Competent Authority that what was taken possession of by the Competent Authority was only Ac. 26-26 guntas and was less than what was requisitioned in the year 1963 and was even less than what was notified and have been acquired under Ex. B8. On that basis it was argued that compensation should be calculated as being payable to the owners of land only to an extent of Ac.26-26 guntas. In support of his claim the Competent Authority had examined witnesses to show that what was taken possession of was less than what was notified to be acquired. But the Arbitrator rejected this contention of the Competent Authority on the reason that the evidence of the witness which related to an event subsequent to the date of requisition was not relevant and that in view of the fact that the extent ef property mentioned as being acquired in the year 1970 was exactly the same as the extent of property that was requisitioned earlier in theyear 1963, it is not open for the authorities to show that they had acquired less than what was notified. We entirely agree with this reasoning and conclusion of the arbitrator. In that view we hold that the so called errata issued by the Government in Ex.B4 which was of the year 1974 showing that the land acquired was only Ac. 26-26 guntas cannot acquire any legal significance. In fact the Government, s contention in this behalf appears to be singularly devoid of any merit and has to be rejected for a substantially different but a new ground. It was not the case of the competent authority that Ac.31-39 guntas was not notified to be acquired under the above mentioned Act. Now according to Section 7 of the above Act once the extent of property which was earlier requisitioned was notified to be acquired and after considring the objections of the owner the Central Government publishes in the official Gazette an appropriate notification acquiring the property, the title to that property will vest absolutely in the Central Goveanment free from all encumbrances and the period of requisition of such property would end. Now in this case the property had been first requisitioned and then acquired through a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 7(1) of the above Act under Ex.BS dated March 1970. By reason of the above statutory provision, the title of the owner to the above mentioned property to an an extent of Ac.31-39 guntas was extinguished and transferred in favour of the Central Government. Thereafter the Government' s liability to pay compensation for thot extent of property acquired would become immutable, no matter whether the Government had taken possession of that property, or not. The argument of the competent authority that the Government was not liable to pay compensation to an extent of Ac. 31-39 guntas because they have not taken possession of the entire extent of land, cannot therefore be upheld, particularly because what was acquired was a piece of property already requisitioned by the Government. This is not a case where the land acquired was not available on the ground. If that were to be it would be arguable that Government should not pay compensation for a piece of land not belonging to the owners and not available physically for acquisition. After all the Government pays compensament for properties acquired from private parties and not for public mistakes it commits. But the land is available. The argument of the Central Govt. in support of their claim to limit their liability to pay compensation only to a reduced extent of Ac.26-26 guntas should be rejected and is accordingly rejected. As no other point is raised in C.M.A.No.665/76 filed by the District Collector it is dismissed with costs.