Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
(1) If any question or dispute arises -- (a) between the Board and the previous owner of any street or square or part thereof which has vested in the Board under section 58 and has been altered or closed by it, as to the sufficiency of the compensation paid or proposed to be paid under sub-section (3) of that section, or (b) between the Board and any person who was entitled, otherwise than as a mere member of the public, to use as a means of access any street or square or part thereof which has vested in the Board under section 58. (i) as to whether the alteration or closing of such street, square or part causes damage or substantial inconvenience to owners of property adjacent thereto or to residents in the neighbourhood, or (ii) as to whether the means of access provided or proposed to be provided under sub-section (4) of the said section 58 are reasonably sufficient, or (iii) as to sufficiency of any compensation paid or proposed to be paid under the said sub-section (4), or (d) between the Board and any person, as to the sufficiency of any compensation paid or proposed to be paid to him under sections 37,40,41,43,64.65, or 157, the matter shall be determined by the Tribunal if referred to it either by the Board or by the claimant, within a period of three months from-in case (a) or (b)- the date on which the street or square or part thereof was altered or closed by the Board, and in case (c)- the date on which the said person was informed of the decision of the Board fixing the amount of compensation to be paid to him or rejecting his claim to compensation; and the determination of the Tribunal shall be final. (2) If a reference to the Tribunal be not made within the period prescribed by sub-section (1), the decision of the Board shall be final (3) For the purpose of determining any matter referred to it under sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall have all the powers with regard to witnesses, documents and costs which it would have if the Land Acquisition Act (Travancore Act XI of 1089), as modified by section 73 of this Act, were applicable to the case.