JAYANTHI SHEDTHI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S.54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dt.4-10-1969 made in O.P.697/67 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge, Mangalojre. The appellant is the first claimant, Respondent 1 is the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Harbour Project, Mangalore, and Respondents 2 and 3 are Claimants 2 and 3. O.P.697/67 arises out of a reference made under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act by the II Addl. Special Land. Acquisition Officer (Harbour) Mangalore, in regard to the apportionment of the compensation granted under his award No.7/67 dt.2-3-1967. The property that was acquired comprised of three plots -S.No.34/1, wet 3, 2 acres 8 cents; S.No.34/2, wet 2, 3 acres 3 cents; and S.No.34/3, garden 0-35 cents. These lands were acquired for the purpose of the Mangalore Harbour Project. The preliminary notification under S.4(1) was published in the, Mysore Gazette (Extraordinary) on 20th November 1964. Respondent 1 determined the compensation for wet 2 lands at Rs.5000 per acre and for wet 3 lands at Rs.2400 per acre. He fixed the compensation for garden land at Rs.4000 per acre. He accepted the valuation prepared by the Public Works Department in respect of the superstructures including the compensation for the trees. He awarded Rs.6,438- 85 as compensation for S.No.34/1, Rs.18,925-55 for S.No.34/2 Rs.6979-35 for S.No.34/3 and in all Rs.32,343-75. The said sum was directed to be deposited in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore, under S.31 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The lands belong to the 1st claimant and they were in the possession of claimants 2 and 3 who were the Chalgeni tenants. All these plots were mortgaged to the Mangalore Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. The 1st claimant claimed compensation for the lands, buildings, structural improvements and trees and she was agreeable for payment of the mortgage amount with interest due to the Bank out of the compensation payable to her. The 2nd claimant lajd claim to 2(3 value of the house, 1/2 value of the thatched shed, full value of the shed built up with palm leaves and 2/3 value of the pond, before the Land Acquisition Officer. He Agreed to the remaining portions of the value of the above improvements to be paid to the 3rd claimant and the balance of the compensation amount to be paid to the 1st claimant. The 3rd claimant la,id claim to half the value of the house, half the value of the thatched shed and full value of one shed built out of palm leaves. He was also ageeable for the payment of the remaining compensation amount in respect of the improvements to the second claimant and for the balance of compensation to be paid to the 1st claimant. The Secretary of the Mangalore Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Mangalore, claimed Rs.2370-57 as outstanding principal and interest payable thereon at 7 per cent as on 1-5-65 as due to the Bank. Since there was no agreement among the interested parties regarding the apportionment of compensation and since there was a dispute between the 1st claimant and the Chalgeni tenants-claimants 2 and 3, regarding the apportionment of compensation for the improvements, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made a reference to the Court under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) The lower Court rejected the claims of Respondents 2 and 3 to the value of the house and cow-shed as well as the pond. It held that claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to the compensation granted in respect of the trees. It rejected the claim of respondents 2 and 3 with regard to the premium that is alleged to have been paid to claimant 1 at the time of her granting the lease.. Though Respondents 2 and 3 agreed before the Land Acquisition Officer to the compensation in respect of the lands to be paid to the landlord, the 1st claimant, they contended in their caim statements before the Court that they must be considered as permanent tenants in view of the fact that the Mysore Land Reforms Act had come into force before possession was taken from them by the Land Acquisition Officer, even though the said Act was not in force on the date of the preliminary notification. The lower Court held that the two tenants-Respondents 2 and 3 were entitled to 1/3 of the compensation granted for the value of the lands. It granted Rs.753-25 to each of the respondents 2 and 3 towards the value of the trees including the solatium. The claim of the Bank was satisfied out of Court. In the result, it awarded Rs.4882-13 to each of Respondents 2 & 3 and Rs.22,579-49 to the appellant.