SRIPYDAH SURYANARAYANAMURTHY Vs. COLLECTOR E GODAVARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are respondents in O.P. No. 106 and O.P. No. 111 of 1950 on the file of the Arbitrator (District Judge) East Godavari, Raja-bmundry, arising out of the references for arbitration in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 3024, Revenue, dated 23-11-1950, under Section 19(1) of the Defence of India Act made by the Collector, East Godavari, Kakinada. The Special Deputy Collector, Kakinada, while requisitioning the lands of these petitioners under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules in the year 1943, purported to act under the powers conferred on him by G.O. Ms. No. 3519, Public (War) Department, Government of Madras, dated 2-12-1943. The Provincial Government of Madras, as the appropriate authority who requisitioned the lands, thereafter acquired the same. Regarding the compensation payable to the petitioners references have been made to the Arbitrator, viz., the District Judge, East Godavari.

(2.) Before the learned Arbitrator, the petitioners contended that the Provincial Government had no power to acquire the lands permanently under the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 (Act XVII of 1947) when the Central Government requisitioned the property, that the appropriate Government in any case, is not the Provincial Government of Madras and also that the compensation should have been with reference td the market value of the land as on the date of Exhibit A-2, which is relied upon as an order of requisition of these lands. The learned Arbitrate negatived all these contentions of the petitioners and held that there has been a valid acquisition of the lands and that compensation is payable at the mar-feet value of the lands at the time of the requisition under Exhibit A-l.

(3.) Sri Chandrasekhara Sastry, the learned advocate for the petitioners in both the petitions, again contends before me that the requisition is only by Central Government and that the Provincial Government has no power to acquire under Section 5 of Act XVII of 1947 and that the compensation payable to the petitioners has to be fixed with reference to the market value as on the date of Exhibit A-2 only, but he did not raise the question as to the power of the Government to acquire the land.