STATE OF M P Vs. SUGANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two First Appeals Nos. 213 of 1973 and 49 of 1972 are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated the Post Master General, Central Circle, Nagpur, wrote to the Collector, Raipur, on 9-11-1961 that land measuring 19500 square feet out of Nazul plots Nos. 2/11 and 2/24 was required for an Auto Exchange building and that steps be taker-for its acquisition. The usual notifies ions under section 4 read with Section 17 (4) and section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on the 20th August, 1962 and 21st December, 1962 respectively. Thereafter, public notices were issued as contemplated by Section 9 (1) of the Act on 7-11-1962 (sic) (1963?) and 29-1-1963 (See Ex. P-31 and Ex. P-30). Special notice came to be giver to Radhabai alone vide Ex. P-32 which was served on her through her husband Birdichand on 4-1-1963. Radhabai appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and objected to acquisition of some portion of the land over which stood a private Jain temple. She even filed B petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution calling in question the acquisition proceedings. The writ petition failed. However, that portion of the land over which stood the temple and the residential apartments, was left out from acquisition and only 11986 square feet land was acquired. Radhabai had claimed com pensation at the rate of Rs. 100/-per square foot. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/-per square foot. The award was made on llth May. 1963 and Radhabai came to be paid the amount of Rs. 55,135.60 Nps. through her husband Birdichand on 13th July, 1963. Radhabai was directed to deliver possession of the land to the Posts and Telegraphs Department.

(3.) On the 26th July, 1963, Dammulal son of Babulal (whose legal representatives are respondents 1 to 12 in both the First Appeals) made an application before the Collector that he alone was entitled to receive the whole compensation and that no notice was served on him nor on Satisb Chandra (respondent No. 23) who occupied a portion of the building for his Office of "Paras Film Exchange". Dammulal also contended that compensation determined was too inadequate. He claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to Court. Dammulal said that he acquired knowledge of the acquisition proceedings on the 24th July, 1963.