COLLECTOR OF CHINGLEPUT DISTRICT Vs. KADIR MOHIDEEN SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother and as I agree with him generally I shall deal with the case ony briefly.

(2.) The objection based on Section 25, Clause (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) is clearly untenable. Clause (1) says that the claim to compensation has to be made " pursuant to the notice given under Section 9 " and this makes a proper notice a pre-requisite. Now, as shown by the District Judge and by my learned brother, such a notice was not given in this case, the notices all being defective in one way or another. The claimant's omission, therefore, to make a claim before the Deputy Collector was not " without sufficient reason " and he escapes the application of the stringent provision of Clause (2) to his case.

(3.) As regards the value of the land acquired, which is the most important item in the total valuation, it is conceded that the claimant is entitled to have his land valued with reference to the most profitable use it can be put to. The land is very suitable for a brickfield as shown by the evidence; in fact the Government is acquiring it for the very purpose of using it as a brickfield. It is also suitable as a building site as proved by witnesses like Mr. Namberumal Chetti, a well-known citizen and building contractor of this City. The claimant is, therefore, entitled to have his land valued in both ways and given the higher value, whichever it may be.