LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE DAVANAGERE Vs. NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of LAC. Nos.372, 364 and 367 of 1969, disposed of by the Civil Judge, Chitradurga.

(2.) Three houses were acquired under a preliminary notification dt. 14-7-1965 issued under S.4(1) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act. The houses were situated in Chikkarahalli village within the Municipal limits of Cavangere City, the purpose of the acquisition being the extension of the regulated market area. Since the claimants had been granted free sites in lieu of part of the compensation for the acquired properties, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation only in respect of the super-structures. The awards which have been marked as Exhibits in the lower Court only refer to the amounts determined by the Engineer of the Public Works Department, who drew up the estimate and costs of the acquired properties. The actual calculation made by the said Engineer is not incorporated in the award, nor is it filed before the lower Court. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.7, Rs.6-75P. and Rs.6-50P. per square foot to the claimants in LAC. Nos.372/69, 364/69 and 367 of 1969 respectively. The learned Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.14, Rs. 13-50 and Rs.13 respectively in the said cases. The present appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the enhancement made by the learned Civil Judge.

(3.) The first point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement since they did not file their claim petition before the Land Acquisition Officer when notices under S 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were served on them. Under S.25(3) of the Act, it is provided that when a person interested has omitted to make the claim pursuant to the notice under Section 9 for sufficient reason, the amount awarded by the Court may exceed the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants contended before the lower Court that on account of certain custom, they had to keep indoors due to epidemic having broken out and that they could not file their claim statements within time after receipt of the notice under S.9. This plea has been found to have been justified by the lower Court. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the claimants had made out sufficient reason for not having filed their claim statements before the Land Acquisition Officer. In these circumstances, we do not find sufficient reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Court.