Chagla, C.J. - (1.)This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovering nonagricultural assessment levied on the land in suit. The Provincial Government of Bombay is defendant 1 to the suit and the District Local Board of Dharwar is defendant 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
(2.)It would appear that the plaintiff is the inamdar of a moiety of the village of Hole Alur in Ron Taluka, and the land in suit, survey No. 161B, forms part of the moiety belonging to the plaintiff. On 16th April 1923, the Government of Bombay passed a resolution deciding to acquire this land for a public purpose, the purpose being the erection of a school to be run by the District Local Board. Acquisition proceedings were started and they ultimately terminated in an award being made on 2nd October 1923. Under this award, a sum of Rs. 1368-80 was paid to one Angadi whose predecessor-in-title became a permanent tenant, the land having been leased to him by a predecessor-in title of the plaintiff. Owing to financial stringency, the school was not built and the Local Board let out the land for nonagricultural purposes. Thereupon non-agricultural assessment was levied upon the Board by Government and it is this assessment which the plaintiff claims in the suit. The plaintiff's case was that no notice was served upon him under Section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore the award was void and his right in the land was not affected either by the acquisition proceedings or by the award which was ultimately made. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he continues to be the inamdar of this land and as such inamdar he is entitled to the assessment levied by Government.
(3.)The facts are few and not in dispute. A public notice under Section 9(1) was issued by the Collector and this notice has to be given stating that Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. It is also not disputed that no notice under Section 9(3) was given by the Collector to the plaintiff. Section 9(3) provides that :
"The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect (as mentioned in Sub-clause (1)) on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate."
It will be noticed that an obligation is cast upon the Collector to serve a notice on every occupier of the land which is to be acquired. There is also an obligation cast upon him to serve a notice on persons who are known to him to be interested in the land or whom he believes to be interested in the land. Therefore the Legislature has made a clear distinction between occupiers of the land and persons who are interested in the land. As far as occupiers are concerned, the Collector must serve a notice upon the occupier. As far as persons interested are concerned, the obligation is cast upon him only if he knows of such persons or believes that there are such persons. With regard to the first class the obligation is absolute; with regard to the second class the obligation is not absolute but is relative and it only arises provided the Collector has knowledge or belief with regard to the existence of the second class of persons. Therefore it is clear that a person who has not been served with a notice under Section 9(3) and who is interested in the land to be acquired can only have a grievance provided he satisfies the Court that the Collector wilfully or fraudulently or perversely omitted to serve the notice contemplated by Section 9(3).