[1] We are clearly of opinion that an appeal lies against the award in so far as it directs the money to be invested in the purchase of Government promissory notes, it being the appellant s case that, no order for investment should have been made, the laud being alienable. The language of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) is wide enough to admit of an appeal in such a case as this.
[2] Though the precise nature of the family charity is not slated, yet it is the case of both the parties that the land taken up by Government was the endowment of the family charity. It is not the appellant s case that the charitable trust has been put an end to and so long as the trust lasts, the land is prima facie not alienable. The order for investment was therefore rightly made. If the appellant wishes to have the investment changed and landed property acquired with the money deposited, that can of course be done on proper application.
[3] The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
Shiva Rao v. S Nagappa
Shiva Rao v. S Nagappa
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
No. | 21-08-1905
Advocate List
- For the Appearing Parties -------
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUBRAHMANIA AYYAR
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANKARAN NAIR
Eq Citations
- (1906) ILR 29 MAD 117
- LQ/MadHC/1905/51
Head Note
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — S. 54 — Investment of compensation — Appeal against — Dismissed — Land taken up by Government was endowment of family charity — So long as trust lasts, land is prima facie not alienable — Order for investment was therefore rightly made — If appellant wishes to have investment changed and landed property acquired with money deposited, that can be done on proper application
