CHIGURUPATI SUBBANNA Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was served with a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Exhibit A. The date upon which he was called upon to appear was the 21 September, 1926. According to the Land Acquisition Officer the appellant did not appear on the 21 September. According to the appellant he did appear but appeared late and the Land Acquisition Officer was angry with him, but nevertheless allowed him to make his claim orally at a later date and allowed him to file two sale-deeds in respect of land close by the land under acquisition. On the 1 December the Land Acquisition Officer made his award and in that award he commenced by stating, "The landowner did not turn up and make any claim in response to the notice issued under Secs.9 and 10 of the Act. He, however, filed copies of two sale-deeds which give a rate of Rs. 2,400 and Rs. 2,450 an acre" and then he proceeded to deal with those sales and show how those lands were distinguishable from the land comprised in the award and he eventually valued the land under acquisition at Rs. 1,800 per acre and awarded compensation accordingly with 15 per cent, allowance extra under the Act. The appellant was dissatisfied with this award and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the case to the Court. It was accordingly referred by him to the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry on the 27 January, 1927. In that letter of reference the Land Acquisition Officer stated that the landowner did not turn up on the date of hearing fixed for enquiry and hence the amount of compensation awarded need not be enhanced under Section 25(2) of the Act.

(2.) It is quite clear that, under Section 25(2) of the Act, if the applicant--the appellant in this case--has, omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make a claim, the amount awarded by the Court is in no case to exceed the amount awarded by the Collector; and therefore the point for consideration by the learned Subordinate Judge was whether the appellant had made any claim for compensation. It is argued here by Mr. Somasundaram on behalf of the appellant that the appellant did make a claim. First of all, he contends that the evidence of the appellant is to be accepted on this point, namely, that the Land Acquisition Officer gave him an adjournment and that he made a claim and supported it by the filing of these two sale-deeds already referred to. Admittedly two sale-deeds were filed because they were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and are dealt with by him in his award. But the Subordinate Judge after hearing evidence on the point has not accepted the appellant's evidence that he made any claim. He regards his evidence as most improbable.

(3.) This case can be considered in two views, via.: (1) that the appellant did not turn up on the 21 September or turned up too late, but nevertheless the Land Acquisition Officer said that he might bring forward his claim at a later date and that- the applicant made a claim for compensation and as evidence of his claim produced these two sale-deeds, or (2) that, having failed to turn up on the 21st September, the Land Acquisition Officer nevertheless allowed him to file the two sale-deeds. In the former alternative I am of the view that the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act would have been complied with because the claimant is not required necessarily to make his, claim in writing so long as he makes a claim for compensation and it is in the discretion of the Land Acquisition Officer to grant him an adjournment. Supposing he does not make a claim on the first day the Land Acquisition Officer can, if he chooses, adjourn the hearing and allow him to make a claim and in support of this view we were referred to the decision of the Punjab Chief Court in Secretary of State V/s. Sohan Lal (1918) 44 I.C. 883. In that case the claimant did not put in a claim on the appointed date, but subsequently put in a written claim and it was held by the Punjab Chief Court that that was a sufficient compliance with the Act. But in this case there is no written claim at all and we merely have the evidence of the claimant himself that he made a claim and that evidence has not been accepted by the learned Subordinate Judge; and we see no reason for disagreeing with the view he has taken with regard to that evidence. The case, therefore, is this that the claimant made no claim at all. He did not appear on the appointed day and therefore under the Act the Land Acquisition Officer had to use the best judgment he could and make his award in the absence of any claim. The mere fact of his having considered the two sale-deeds does not justify the argument that he must be held to have treated the amounts therein as the valuation placed upon the land by the claimant. It was his duty to make use of all the information available. Having made such an award it was not open to the Court to make any award in excess of the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. But we are asked to- say that the filing of the sale-deeds amounted to making a claim for the amount which the sale-deeds show that the adjoining lands were sold for, namely, in the one case Rs. 2,400 and in the other Rs. 2,450 per acre and it is contended that that is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 9(2) which is as follows: Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice) and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections to the measurements made under Section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent.