SECRETARY OF SATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF SALEM Vs. RNARAYANASWAMI CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals against the award of the District Judge of Salem made in certain land acquisition proceedings which vvere taken pursuant to the Town Planning Act (VII of 1^20). The scheme was generally known as Maravaneri Extension and was intended to enlarge the accommodation of Salem Town. The facts of the case may now be stated.

(2.) On 1 February, 1921, the Madras Government invited the Municipal Council of Salem by a notification published in the Fort St. George Gazette to submit for their sanction within three months from the date of the publication of the notification a scheme in respect of the area now in question (Ex. A). This was under Section 12 of the Town Planning Act. That section authorises the Government to fix a date within which the Municipal Council should submit the scheme and the Government fixed three months as the period. The Salem Municipal Council did not submit their scheme within three months. The draft scheme was submitted on 28 August, 1921 (Ex. B). Seeing that the Government ultimately published a notification on 21 September, 1923, under Section 14(3) of the Act {vide Exhibit D) we must assume that the Madras Government has accepted the draft scheme though it was submitted late and condoned the delay of the Municipal Council. Section 34 of the Town Planning Act provides that a notification under Section 14 of that Act shall operate in respect of any land covered by it as a declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. So further proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act. An Acquisition Officer was appointed and he made an award on 2nd September, 1926. Many of the claimants were not satisfied with it and required a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was thus that the matter came up before the District Judge of Salem and against his award these appeals are filed by the Government and one claimant.

(3.) The District Judge held that, as the Salem Municipal Council had not complied with the notification of the Government within three months as required in Ex. A, the notification became spent as it were and any action taken by the Municipal Council subsequently for the purpose of settling a scheme and getting the approval of the Government could not be regarded as one under Section 12 of the Town Planning Act. He then observed that the Government had no power to extend the time mentioned in the notification and therefore the notification, Ex. A, had no legal effect whatever; but he also held that the subsequent proceedings taken under the Act were still valid. He pointed out that, apart from the notification under Section 12, the Municipal Council could suo mo tit frame a scheme under Section 10(3) or Section 11 and the Government may approve of the scheme under Section 14(3) and further proceedings can follow a notification by the Government under Section 14 of the Act. He finally held that though the notification under Section 12 lapsed and there was no notification under Section 10(1), and therefore Section 35(2)(a) of the Town Planning Act could not be applied, the notification under Section 14 could still be utilised for a date to calculate the values. Under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act the market- value of the land on the date of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 must be taken into consideration. Under Section 34 of the Town Planning Act the notification published under Section 14 of the Town Planning Act is itself deemed to be a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. He therefore held that 21 September, 1923, the date of Ex. D, the final notification under Section 14, must be taken to be the date at which the value of the plots belonging to the claimants should be ascertained, and he proceeded to give his award. This conclusion is challenged by the learned Government Pleader. He cited some cases before us to show that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to go behind the reference. But I do not think that this point arises before us. The learned District Judge did not say that the reference to him was invalid, nor is any such proposition contended for by the respondents. The District Judge held that the notification under Section 14 was a valid notification and the further proceedings were valid. All that he said was that there was no notification utfder Section 10(1), nor any operative notification under Section 12 of the Town Planning Act, and therefore Section 35(2)(a) could not be applied. He therefore chose the notification under Section 14 which is equivalent to a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and proceeded to estimate the value as on that date. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the cases cited hy the learned Government Pleader.