MAHARAJAH OF PITHAPURAM Vs. D L O KAKINADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These C. R. Ps raise an important question of law as to the interpretation of sections 31 and 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. The lands of the petitioner in the Estate of Pithapuram were from time to time acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation amount was invested in treasury certificates. At the time of the re-investment of the funds, the Estate of Pithapuram had been taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The petitioner herein objected to the re-investment and insisted that the amount should be paid over to him. The Subordinate Judge of Kakinada over-ruled his objection and directed re-investment under the provisions of Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner has consequently preferred these C. R. Ps.

(2.) There is no force in the contention raised by the Government that the fund vested under Section 3 of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948 in the Government. Under Section 3 (b) of the Act, the entire estate including all communal land and porambokes......shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances. The treasury certificates can in no sense be regarded as a part of the Estate within the meaning of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The Subordinate Judge was therefore right in holding that the ownership in the treasury certificates did not stand transferred to the Government.

(3.) The amounts of compensation were deposited In the Court under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the Maharjah of Pithapur was a person incompetent to alienate the land. The amounts were directed to be invested in treasury certificates under section 32 as no other lands could be beneficially purchased. The decision in the Special Deputy Collector of Ramnad v. The Rajah of Ramnad is an authority for the view that an impartible estate holder is a person having no power to alienate under Sections 31 and 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. Sri Ramakrishna Rao, the learned Advocate for the petitioner attempted to challenge the correctness of that decision. But he has not been able to convince me that it requires reconsideration.