COLLECTOR OF CUTTACK Vs. MAYADHAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 26-6-72 of a Division Bench of which the then Chief Justice was a member, this appeal was directed to be heard by a larger Bench to examine the correctness of the decision in AIR 1956 Orissa 114. Accordingly this appeal has been heard by a Full Bench of three Judges.

(2.) THIS appeal is by the Collector of Cuttack from a decision dated 23-12-66 of the subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act. 1894. The land, involved in this land acquisition proceeding is 0. 02 decimals of Gharabari in plot No. 46, appertaining to Khata No. 102/11 of Mouza, biribati. This land, along with other lands, was needed for improvement of cuttack-Kuiang road and accordingly, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act was published on 19-4-63. Section 6 notification was also issued in dup course. Public notice under Section 9 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18-5-63, and special notice under Section 9 (3) was issued on 4-963. The sole-respondent, who is the person interested in the land acquired omitted to make any claim as to the amount of compensation pavable for his interest in the land acauired or to file any obiection to the measurement carried out by the collector, under Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act. Upon completion of the inquiry conducted under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector delivered his award on 8-10-63. for a sum of Rs. 13,690/ -. This amount is the aggregate of the compensation determined by the Collector on various heads, viz the value of the land, value of the house standing thereon, amount of solatium, and the amount of damage assessed under Clauses 3, 4 and 6 of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' ). Being required by the claimant-respondent a reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the Subordinate judge who determined the amount of compensation payable at Rs. 24-,659/ -. This amount was in excess of the Collector's award by Rs. 11,040/ -.

(3.) THE Collector has appealed. His main contention is that as the claimant omitted to make any claim to compensation pursuant to the notice given under Section 9 of the Act, the learned Subordinate Judge could not enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector, For this reliance is placed on Section 25 of the Act. In reply, it Is contended by the respondent that since no valid notice had been served under Section 9 (3) of the Act. the entire proceeding commencing from Section 9 stagp till the making of the award, is without jurisdiction, and the award is accordingly void. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in AIR 1'956 Orissa 114.