- (1.) THIS appeal by the State is against the judgment of the principal Subordinate judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. As to the reason why this appeal was in the shelf of the High Court for nearly one decade cannot be explained. It is however resurrected and brought before us, but with scanty record and with no sufficient typed papers for a Division Bench, yet with tie assistance of counsel, we could gather the necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal.
(2.) AN extent of 2. 18 acres of agricultural land in S. No. 289-1-B in Rajapalayam village was acquired along with some more extent of land for the public purpose of providing house sites for Katta Naickers. The notification under Section 4 (1)of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 11-11-1964. A year later, a portion of the above notified land was withdrawn from acquisition by the Government issuing a notification under Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. This withdrawal became necessary as the acquiring authorities were of the view that a portion of the land 'which was originally notified for acquisition was unsuitable for house sites because there was an odai running in the middle of the land. Such a notification for withdrawal ot the excess land not required for the public purpose was made on 17-11-1965. In so far as the lie of the land which is acquired and which is the subject matter of acquisition is concerned, it is common ground that it is sur-rounded by the roads formed by the Rajapalayam municipality. The Land Acquisition Officer enquired into the value of the land and whilst doing so found that the land sought to be acquired is Government dry land and was registered as such in the records of the Rajapalayam village. The description as given by the Land Acquisition Officer thus establishes that the land was dry land and was classified as agricultural land. He evaluated the land with the assistance of the sales statistics gathered by him. In the sales statistics referred to by him, he took into consideration, the sales of small extents of land in the vicinity of the acquired land. In particular he relied upon such sales which took place in S. No. 161/3. In sales particulars given by the laud Acquisition Officer, we find three such particulars on record. The first sale in S. No. 161/3 of the year 1963 gave a price of Rs. 10888 per acre. The second sale in the same survey number but of the month of July 1963 gave a price of Rs. 8000 per acre. The third sale which was in the month of Aug. 1963, gave a price of Rs. 6667 per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer adopted the last price fetched for a portion of the land sold in S. No. 181/4 and he was of the view that that would be the rate at which the fair price of the acquired land should be evaluated. He found that the said data lands are only about one furlong from the land to be acquired and in respect of the tharam, soil and fertility, both S. No. 161/3 and S. No. 289-1-B are comparable land. When he took up the enquiry, the owner who is Sri Pethavanallur Mayuranathasami devastanam, Rajapalayam did not prefer a claim about the quantum of compensation in spite of notice having been served on the devastanam to make such a claim. Finally, at the time of the award enquiry, the executive officer of the Devastanam, not only failed to make a claim but did not give the rate of compensation at least, which he thought would be the scale for assessing the just compensation for the acquired land. In these state of affairs, the Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 21-9-1966, but without any claim as such for compensation having been made by the devasthanam before the said officer. But the devastanam, however, sought for a reference under section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded. On such an application, the subject matter was referred to civil court and the learned Subordinate Judge was of the view that the acquired land has to be valued as on 17-11-1965 and not as on 11-11-1964 since, according to him, a revised notification under Section 4 (1) has been published or re-issued on 17-11-1965. We have already referred to the fact that the Government decided to take out of consideration and compulsory acquisition one portion of the originally notified land for the public purpose aforesaid and such a notification under Section 48 (1) was made on 17-11-1965. The learned subordinate Judge was of the view that that ought to be the date on which the property has to be valued. He relied upon Ex. B. 2 which the Land Acquisition officer himself took into consideration in fixing the value of the acquired land. Whilst the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value at Rs. 6667 per acre, the court below raised the compensation to Rs, 15000 per acre on two grounds. Firstly, it thought that the date of notification on which the property had to be evaluated should be 17-11-1965 and secondly, the same being two years after the date on which the sale took place under Ex. B. 2, and also giving such due weightage to the lapse of time between the date of sale under Ex. B. 2, and the date on which, according to the lower Court the property has to be evaluated, it granted a compensation at the rate of Rs. 15000 per acre. It is as against this the State has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) SMT. Vimala, learned counsel, for the Government, raised three contentions before us. Firstly, she would say that in the absence of any statement by the claimant either in the shape of quantified claim or at least in the nature of a claim setting forth the rate at which the owner sought for compensation and no application in, writing, having been made under Section 25 (2) of the Land acquisition Act, to show that there was sufficient reason for not making such a claim before the Land Acquisition Officer, the grant of compensation in excess of that awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is without jurisdiction. Secondly, the contention was that in the absence of anything under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act, which prompted the civil Court to call upon the claimant before it to make such a claim for increased compensation and show unjustifiable reasons for not having made such a claim before the Land acquisition Officer, the court below suo motu ought not to have increased the compensation. Thirdly, it is said that as the above two contentions are matters inextricably connected with the jurisdiction of a civil Court, it could be raised in this court, even though such a plea either expressly or by necessary implication was taken before the learned Sub' ordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram. Lastly, the contention more or less bordering partly on facts and partly on law in that the lower Court was wrong in having evaluated the property as on 17-11-1965 on the assumption that a notification issued under Section 48 (1) of the Land acquisition Act tantamounts to a fresh notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act.;