MUNICIPALITY NALGONDA Vs. HAKEEM MOHIUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been referred to the Bench by our learned brother, Manohar Pershad, J., as involving an important question relating to a reference under Section 25 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act corresponding to Section 30 of Indian Land Acquisition Act. It appears that 35 guntas of land, 40 guntas making an acre, were acquired for building a civil supplies godown in 1954. Notices under Sections 3 and 5 were duly given and also individual notice was given to the Bahadur Khan Education Trust which appears to have been in possession of the land in question. An enquiry was held under Section 10 and a compensation of Rs. 4,235.00 was fixed, but before an award could be passed three claimants put in application claiming to be entitled to compensation. The first application is by Ahmed Hussain made on 6-5-1356 F., which on enquiry was dismissed by the Collector. Then Abdul Karim made an application on 16-11-1358 F. This was also likewise dismissed. After this application was disposed of, one Ahmed Bi made an application after which Basheerunnisa Begum filed a claim. Both these claims were also dismissed by the Collector. Thereafter Abdul Karim who was the-second claimant, again filed an application before the Additional Collector, whereupon the Collector made a reference to the civil Court by an order of reference dated 15-4-1954 in the following terms:

(2.) Before us the learned Advocate for the appellant has cited several decisions for and against the proposition that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim of a person who has not filed his claim before the Collector. But before we refer to these decisions it would facilitate a better understanding if we refer to the relevant provisions of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. Section 10 says:

(3.) In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs on the ground that the appellants claim cannot be entertained in these proceedings.