Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
A.P.S. Karuppaiah Nadar vs Special Dy. Collector For Land ... on 7 December, 1954 cites

V.S. Subramania Chettiar And Anr. vs State Of Madras Represented By The ... on 10 April, 1952

Learned counsel relied for tin's purpose on the decision of a Bench of this court in - 'Subramania Chettiar v. State of Madras', (A). Having carefully examined it, we find that it does not support any such proposition. The facts of that case were that at the time when the appellant appeared before the Acquisition Officer in response to a notice under Section 9(3) of the Act, he was still objecting to the acquisition itself and was under the impression that he had to formulate his claim only after his objections to the acquisition were disposed of. Acting on this belief, the claimant did not make any claim specifying the amount of compensation for the property acquired. The learned Judges held that the claimant had a just cause for. omitting to make the claim within the meaning, of Section 25(2) of the Act and that the court could, on a consideration of the circumstances, permit a claim for enhanced compensation to be made at the stage of the reference. The facts of "the present case do hot raise arty such mistake or misapprehension on the part of the appellant who has positively asserted that he did make a claim for compensation though his statement was found to be false.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1