ANJANAPPA Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANJUNGUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether an appellant, whose lands have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, as in force in the State of Mysore, to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Court on a reference to it under S.18 of the Act appeals to the High Court, is bound to include in the valuation of his appeal, fifteen per cent of the market value of the land, which is statutory allowance payable under S.23(2) of the Act and pay Court fee thereon, or whether he is entitled to value the appeal excluding the statutory allowance on the basis of difference between the claim and the amount awarded by the lower Court. The answer to the question turns on the true construction of S.48 of the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Court Fees Act', which provides that the fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against a decision or an award or order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of property for a public purpose shall be computed on the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant. Mr. Rangaraj, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that under S.23(1) of the Act, the amount of compensation to be awarded is to be determined by taking into consideration the factors stated in clauses (1) to (6) of the said sub-section and in construing the expression 'amount awarded' in S.48 of the Court Fees Act, it should be taken to cover only the amount awarded having regard to the considerations mentioned in clauses(1) to (6) in sub-sec. (1) of S.23 of the Act. According to him, the expression 'amount awarded' in S.48 of the Court Fees Act and in the Land Acquisition Act should receive similar construction. In support of his contention, he relied upon the provisions of Ss.26 and 27 of the Act.

(2.) In order to answer the point raised by Mr. Rangaraj, it is necessary to refer to the relevant sections of the Act. S.15 of the Act provides: "In determining the amount of compensation, the Deputy Commissioner shall be guided by the provisions contained in Ss.23 & 24." S.23(1) deals with matters to be considered in determining compensation. That section provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration the several factors mentioned in that sub-section, S.23(2) provides: "In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."

(3.) S.24 deals with matters to be neglected in determining compensation and that section says that the factors mentioned therein should not be taken into consideration in determining compensation. S.26 merely prescribes the form of award and S.27 provides for awarding costs. These two sections indicate the form of award to be made by the Court. The award as stipulated in the Act must state the area of the land acquired, compensation awarded, and the apportionment of the amount among all persons interested in the land in respect of whom the Deputy Commissioner has information. Once the sum is deposited under S.31, the function of the award ceases. Sub-sec. (2) of S.26 states that the award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of S.2, clauses(2) and (9), CPC. A decree according to the provisions of the CPC. is the formal expression of an adiudication which so for as the Court expressing it is concerned, conclusively determines the rights of parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy S.34 of the Act provides for payment of interest at 5 per cent per annum, on the compensation awarded. From a reading of these provisions, particularly the provisions contained in S 15. it is clear that the expression 'amount of compensation' awarded by the Deputy Commissioner includes not only the market value, but also the 15 per cent thereon as required to be determined under S.23, because it is obvious that the Deputy Commissioner is bound to tender to the person from whom the land has been compulsorily acquired the said 15 per cent also and to deposit the same in Court, if the land owner does not consent to receive the same. A harmonious construction of the provisions referred to above leads to the only conclusion that the total compensation payable under the Act not only includes what in determined under sub-sec. (1). but also what is provided in sub-sec (2) of S. 23 of the Act. It is therefore clear that the extra amount of compensation claimed by the appellant in an appeal, should under S 48 of the Court Fees Act include also the 15 per cent of the market value and that he should pay Court fee on the total amount including the 15 per cent. It seems to us that he cannot value his appeal only at the excess market value claimed by him in the appeal excluding the statutory allowance of 15 per cent, but at the same time, in case of succesr not only claim that excess market value decreed to him but also claim that the appellate decree should automatically give him an additional 15 per cent of the said excess market value. We are of the view that the claim in appeal is different from the claim put forward by him before the Deputy Commissioner That is the view that has been taken bv this Court in Suhhadra Bai v. State of Mysore, (1970) 1 Mys.L.J. 91. In that rase this Court was no doubt, dealing with the question whether Court fee had to be paid on the current interest on the aggregate amount determined under S.23 of the Act. But while doing so, the Court, had to construe S 48 of the Court Fees Act and had to interpret the expression 'amount awarded' occurring in that section. On that point, this is what the Court said: "We hold that the expression 'amount awarded' in S.48 of the Court Fees Act, means the amount computed under S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act inclusive of solatium." Same view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Brahmanandam v. Secretary of State, AIR. 1930 Mad. 45 and the High Court of Travancore-Cochin in Abdulrahiman Kunju v. State, AIR. 1955 TC. 110.