MELKANGANAM TAHSILDAR Vs. GOVINDAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff appellant, Mr. G. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel, challenges the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Trivandrum holding that the application by the appellant, asking for a reference under S.18 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act is barred by limitation. Pausing here for a minute, it may be stated that the learned Subordinate Judge has held that if the application for reference filed by the appellant is considered to be within time, then he will be entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs. 125 percent. There is also an attack levelled by the learned Counsel for the appellant, as against the increase in the apportionment of the compensation in favour of the 1st plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent in this appeal.

(2.) The subject matter of the acquisition relates to 50 cents comprised in S. No. 352 of Muttathara village in Trivandrum Taluk. The acquisition was for the purpose of providing accommodation to the Kamaleswaram Primary School. The acquisition, as already mentioned, was under f he Travancore Land Acquisition Act, XI of 1089.The declaration under S.6 of the said Act was published on 19th August 1958. The appellant 2nd plaintiff claimed value for the land at Rs. 200 percent. The 1st respondent who is the tenant of the property, claimed value of improvements and also compensation for the Kuthakapattom lease being terminated by virtue of the acquisition.

(3.) The Land Acquisition Officer made an award of Rs. 75 per cent on 18th October 1958, and a total sum of Rs. 4,696.60 p. was awarded to the appellant. From and out of this amount, the Land Acquisition Officer had directed, that the 1st respondent 1st plaintiff, who, as I already stated, is the kuthakapattom lessee, is entitled to a sum of Rs. 110 being value of the improvements effected by him on the property. Both the parties appear to have asked for a reference to court, the details of which will be mentioned a little later. So far as the application for reference filed by the 1st respondent is concerned, no controversy has been raised that it is in any manner barred by limitation; and that related only to the question of the apportionment in the sense that he wanted a higher amount to be paid to him from and out of the total compensation amount to be paid to the appellant. So far as the appellant 2nd plaintiff is concerned, it is necessary to state a few dates in order to consider the correctness or otherwise of the reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge that there has been no proper application riled by him within the period mentioned in S.18 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act.