Anantanarayana Ayyar, J. - (1.) Certain properties were acquired under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the Medical Department. The Land Acquisition Officer passed one award regarding S. No. 27 of Yousufguda village of an area 16 acres 28 guntas awarding compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 3,200 per acre and also compensation for the trees standing thereon as follows :- 12 Palmyra trees, Rs. 10 per tree. 250 neem trees, Rs. 15 per tree.
(2.) He also awarded 15 % solatium. He also passed another award regarding S. No. 58 of Bahlool Khanguda of an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,500 per acre. There were no trees concerned in that award. The sole claimant to the properties in the suit is Nawab Rais YarJung. In the land acquisition proceedings, he has made a claim at Rs. 2 per sq.yd. for the land and Rs. 15,000 towards the trees standing in the land of Yousuguda village at the rate of Rs. 20 per tree. He felt dissatisfied with the award and requested the Collector to make a reference to the Court. Accordingly, the Collector made a reference. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad numbered these references relating to S. No. 27 of Yousufguda as O.P. No. 193 of 1958 and the reference relating to S. No. 58 of Bahlool Khanguda as O.P. No. 194 of 1958. The Govrnment also put forward objections. The claimant in each O.P. was the same and the lands concerned also were close to each other. At the request of both sides, the learned Additional Chief Judge recorded the evidence in O.P. No. 193 of 1958 for purposes of being read as evidence in both the O.Ps. The claimant deposed as P.W. 1 and examined besides, the other witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3, in support of his case. He filed documents Exhibits A-1 to A-10. Of these Exhibit A-1 is a sale deed dated 4th February, 1952 executed by Fakhr Nawaz Jung in favour of P.W. 2 selling 1,300 sq. yds. for a sum of Rs. 2,600 i.e., at the rate of Rs. 2 per sq. yd. P.W. 3 was a Pairokar under the claimant and he spoke to an order Exhibit A-7 dated 29th Rahman 1359-F (1949) which was a letter by the District Collector giving intimation to the claimant stating the price of 1 acre and 35 guntas, namely, the particular land which is concerned in O.P. No. 194 of 1958 as Rs. 10,436 which works out to a rate which is a little above Re. 1 per sq. yd. Exhibit A-7 was written in connection with acquisition proceedings which were started with reference to the land concerned in O.P. No. 194 of 1958 even earlier and that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped and the lands were denotified. Subsequently, the present acquisition proceedings were started regarding the same land by a notification dated 17th September, 1953 under section 3 (1) of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act which corresponds to section 4 (1) of the Central Land Acquisition Act. The land concerned in O.P. No. 193 of 1958 was originally taken possession of by the Government in 1947 (28th Sherewar 1357-F). At that time, the Government got a panchanama prepared to show the state of the land at that time. That panchanama is Exhibit A-2 and runs as follows :- "When we counted the neem trees in detail we found that their total number was 1,154..........These trees may be 25 or 26 years old and most of the trees are useful for Sarm (pillars) and beams. Beams, 15 feet long, can be prepared from the said trees. Some of the trees are worth Rs. 10 each and some are worth Rs. 12 each. The neem trees can actually fetch an average price of Rs. 15 each. We panchas counted the trees and assessed the market value of the timber of neem trees in view of the local importance and in view of the market value......" On behalf of the Government only one witness was examined, namely, P.W. 1 who is a Surveyor attached to the Office of the Collector of Land Acquisition. He filed two documents Exhibits B-1 and B-2. Of these Exhibits B-2 is an award of the Collector dated 28th August,1953, relating to the land of Lachaman Rao which was acquired after a Gazette notification dated 20th October, 1952 under section, 3 (1) of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. This award mentions that Lachaman Rao claimed Rs. 3 per square yard and ultimately was granted award at the rate of Rs. 3,200 per acre as market value. It would appear that Lachaman Rao remained content with that award and that the land concerned therein is near the land which is now concerned in O.P. Nos. 193 and 194 of 1958. The learned Additional Chief Judge considered that the document, which could serve as the best standard for fixing the market value of the lands concerned in the two O. Ps. was Exhibit A-1. He also held on the basis of this standard that the value for the two lands has to be fixed after taking into account two important features as. follows :- (1) The land purchased under Exhibit A-1 is a small plot of 1,300 sq. yds. and therefore the price of Rs. 2 per sq. yd. in that document which is a plot-rate would naturally be too high for being adopted for the lands concerned in O.P. Nos. 193 and 194 of 1958 which are big areas. (2) The land under Exhibit A-1 had greater advantages than the two items, of lands in the two O. Ps. in that the land covered by Exhibit A-1 was nearer to- the cement road than the lands under acquisition. On this basis, he held that the reasonable figures of market value for the land in O.P. No. 194 of 1958 was Rs. 1-8-0 per square yard and the market value of the land concerned in O.P. No. 193 of 1958 was Rs. 1-4-0 per square yard. Accordingly, he answered the two references. Aggrieved with the decision in the two O.Ps., the Government has filed C.C.C. A. No. 50 of 1961 against the decision in O.P. No. 193 of 1958 and C.C.C.A. No. 51 of 1961 against the decision in O.P. No. 194 of 1958. The claimant has also filed cross-objections making claims on the lines of his original claim in the Court bleow.
(3.) The question is whether the decision given by the learned Additional Chief Judge regarding the prices or the market value of the land and of trees is reasonable and requires interference by this Court. In the two awards, the Collector held that the correct basis for fixing the market value was Exhibit B-2, which was an award passed on 28th August, 1953 at the rate of Rs. 3,200 per acre relating to the land which was in the neighbourhood. He also observed that, from the beginning of 1952, a downward tendency in price of land was noticeable which still continued. Regarding the trees, the Collector went on the basis that the number of toddy and neem trees were 12 and 250 respectively and that no evidence had been led to assess the value of those trees. Accordingly, he held that the compensation for the toddy trees may be allowed in favour of Jagirdar Raja Lachaman Rao and the compensation for neem trees may be sent to the Court under section 25 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act, as there was a dispute between the Jagirdar and Pattedar regarding the amount due for those trees. The documents available before us to assist the market value are as follows :- 1212.htm The learned Government Pleader has relied on the document (Exhibit B-2) and the learned Advocate for the claimant has relied on the document (Exhibit A-8), whereas the trial Court has relied on the document (Exhibit A-1). Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Indian Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) correspond to sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (IX of 1309-F). Under section 14 (1) of the Hyderabad Act, any person interested, who is displeased with the Taluqdar's award may, within two months from the date of receiving notice of the award, apply to the Taluqdar in writing to refer the case to the Court for determination, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, or to the amount of the compensation, or to the persons to whom it is payable or to the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Under sub-section (2) to section 14, the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. Under section 15(1), in making the reference the Taluqdar shall state for the information of the Court, in writing, under his hand, (a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon ; (b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land ; (e) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under sections 4 and 13 or either of them, and the amount of compensation awarded under section 10 ; and (d) if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined. Under sub-section (2) to section 15, a Schedule giving the particulars shall be attached to the said statement under sub-section (1) of section 15. Under section 16, on a reference of the case, the Court shall cause a notice to be served on the objector as plaintiff and on all the persons interested and, if the objection be to the amount of compensation also, on the Taluqdar as defendant, and the day fixedfor the inquiry of the case shall be specified in the notice and the parties shall be instructed to appear in the Court on that day. Under section 17, the inquiry in such case shall be restricted to the interests of the persons affected by the objection. In Raghu Natha v. Secretary of State, (1930) 58 M.L.J. 223 : L.R. 57 I.A. 100 : A.I.R. 1930 P.C. 64. it was held by the Privy Council that the the Courts under the Central Land Acquisition Act was a special one area was strictly limited by the terms of sections 18, 20 and 21 of the Act, that it only arose when a specific objection had been taken to the award of the Collector and that it was confined to a consideration of that objection. In that case, the only objection taken was to the amount of compensation. It was held by their Lordships that the objections alone was the matter referred and that the Court had no power to determine or consider anything beyond it for example, a question of measurement raised for the first time three years after references were duly made by the Collector. This principle was approved by the Privy Council in a subsequent decision in Ms. Bhagwati v. Ram Kali, (1939) L.R. 66 I.A. 145 : (1939) 2 M.LJ. 98 : A.I.R. 1939 P.C. 133. In In re Zamindar of Ettayapuram, (1943) 1 M.L.J. 2781: A.I.R. 1943 Mad. 337. the Madras High Court held relying upon the decision of the Privy Council in Bhagwati v. Ramkali, that under section 16 of the Indian Act, claiming a reference to the Court, all that a claimant had to do was to state in his application that he objected to the amount of compensation awarded and which of the four heads of objection detailed in sub-section (1) to section 8 he proposed to rely upon. Therein, it was further observed that it was not incumbent upon the claimant to state the rate at which he claimed compensation, that the maximum and the minimum which could be awarded by the Court were clearly indicated in section 25 (1) of the Act and, without particulars of claim, it was open to the Court to award him compensation or dimiss his application.;