AGNEE DSOUZA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is by the claimants against the award and decree made by the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O.P.No.1229/65. Parcels of land comprised in S. No.74/4A, 747/12 and 74|15 in Panambur village were acquired for the purpose of Mangalore Harbour Project. The notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Mysore Gazette on 27-7-1963. The claim before the Land Acquisition Officer by claimant No. 1 was in regard to the value of the land and certain improvements effected on them. The improvements in particular were, a house, well and other trees. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award in regard to Survey No. 74/4A which was treated as Wet II at Rs. 5,000 an acre; in regard to S. No. 74 12 which was treated as garden land the award was at Rs. 4,000 an acre regarding S. No. 74/15 which was treated as Wet III the compensation awarded was Rs. 4,000 an acre. Feeling dissatisfied with the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought a reference to the civil court The first claimant was a chalgeni tenant and the second claimant was one of the co-owners of the property. The learned Civil Judge determined the market value of the Wet II land and Wet III land at Rs. 7,500 and Rs. 6,000 an acre respectively. In regard to the garden land, he came to the conclusion that no enhancement was justified. In regard to the improvement also he was of the opinion that the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate. However, he ultimately rejected the reference on the basis that claimant No. 1 was only a chalageni tenant and claimant No. 2 had not made a claim before the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to the notice under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the reference and the determination of the market value of the lands and the improvements, the claimants have appealed.

(3.) So far as the wet lands are concerned, the learned Civil Judge valued the lands on the basis of the value of the yield from the lands. The basis adopted by him was the net income of 15 muras of rice in respect of Wet II and 12 muras of rice in respect of Wet III. There is no evidence on record justifying modification of the basis in any manner. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in regard to the market value determined by the learned Civil Judge in respect of the wet lands, no modification is called for. Similarly with regard to the garden land, the learned Civil Judge proceeded on the basis of the yield, namely, the annual rental of Rs. 200. There is no other basis to determine the market value. Accordingly, the claim for enhancement in regard to the garden land also must be rejected.