RAMASWAMI AYYAR Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the deceased father of the appellant in respect of the proposed acquisition of a plot of land be-longing to him by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894. The plaintiff was served with notice as required by the Act and a notification to the effect that the land is needed for a public purpose was also published in the Official Gazette. Alleging that the proposed acquisition is illegal, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 (the Government) from acquiring the suit land. Both the lower Courts have held that the proposed acquisition is for a public purpose and it is legal and valid. The contentions put forward by the plaintiff in the lower Courts are also pressed in this second appeal.

(2.) On the report of the Deputy Collector on special duty, who was ordered to examine the subject of providing the Pan-chamas of the Tanjore District with house sites and on the recommendation of the Board of Revenue, the Government issued an order dated 10 November, 1917, sanctioning the acquisition of sites for the benefit of the Panchamas: vide Ex. 1. In the present case, it is found by both the Courts below that the site in question was acquired for providing house sites to Panchamas and also a school for them. This acquisition seems to have been intended for the benefit of defendants Nos. 5 to 23 who are poor Panchamas labourers suffering inconveniences without permanent dwelling houses. As to the question whether an acquisition for such a purpose is really one for a public purpose within the meaning of the Act, it has been held by Devadoss, J., in Veeraraghavachariar V/s. Secretary of State 86 Ind. Cas 485 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 837 : 49 M. 237 : 48 M.L.J. 204, that in accordance with Section 3, Clause (f), Land Acquisition Act, the Government of Madras declared by a notification in 1895 in favour of acquisition of village sites in the Tanjore District and that the acquisition of house sites for Panchamas is a public purpose within the meaning of Section 3 (f) of the Act. Even if only a section of the public is benefited by this acquisition, the purpose would still be a public purpose as held by Venkatasubba Rao, J., in a recent case reported as Secretary of State V/s. Gopal Ayyar 127 Ind. Cas. 609 : A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 798 : 59 M.L.J. 274 : 32 L.W. 179.

(3.) The facts of the present case are exactly on all fours with the facts of the case decided by me in Secretary of State V/s. Murugesa Pillai and the facts of the case in Secretary of State V/s. Gopala Ayyar 127 Ind. Cas. 609 : A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 798 : 59 M.L.J. 274 : 32 L.W. 179, decided by Venkatasubba Rao, J. Objections now raised against the validity of the acquisition are almost similar to those raised in the said two cases. The conclusions arrived at in those decisions after a due consideration of these objections, should, in my opinion, govern the present case also.