P.E. MATHEW AND OTHERS Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR OR (L.A.) STATE HOUSING BOARD SCHEMES MADRAS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in a common judgment in certain land acquisition proceedings which came before him under S. 18 of that Act. The lands in question are situated in Korattur village, Saidapet taluk, Chingleput Dt. They were acquired by the Government for the development of the West Madras neighbourhood. The notification under S. 4(1) was issued on 25th December 1963. The lands under acquisition covered an extent of 2 -29 acres. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 100 per cent with reference to these lands. In the reference made to the civil court the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput increased the compensation to Rs. 130 per cent. The State had filed an appeal against this judgment in so far as the compensation was increased from Rs. 100 to Rs. 130 in A.S. No. 408 of 1975. That was dismissed. The claimants in this appeal want a higher compensation and in the grounds of appeal they have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 233 per cent and have paid court fee accordingly. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that under Ex. A. 4, d. 15th July, 1963 between one Maria Pichai Nadar and P.E. Mathew, there was a sale of an area measuring 2 - -45 acres. The sale deed itself was preceded by an agreement d. 7th June 1963. The price works out to Rs. 150 per cent. Learned counsel brought to our notice the fact that in A.S. No. 899 of 1974 and 408 of 1975, Mohan, J. had considered the compensation payable with reference to the lands acquired in this very area, and had also considered Ex. A. 4. The learned Judge has taken the compensation payable with reference to these lands in that case at Rs. 200 per cent. It has been pointed out in the said judgment that the lands are situated very near the T.V.S. group of Companies, and that at one side of the lands there is Tiruvallore High Road, and on the other the Arakkonam -Madras railway line. The locality was considered to be important, and the lands were considered to be valuable so as to justify fixation of the value at Rs. 200 per cent. We have gone through the said judgment and we are in agreement with it. Following it, we hold that a sum of Rs. 200 per cent would be adequate compensation with reference to the lands in question.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the court below had not taken into account the claim for compensation for loss of earnings in respect of a factory that was actually located on the lands. According to the learned counsel, he has sustained the loss on two grounds, viz., (1) in respect of removal of the factory, and (2) in relation to loss of earnings consequent upon the factory having been shifted from this place to some other place. The learned counsel appearing for the Government pointed out that in the memorandum of valuation appended to the appeal, the claim had been restricted only to the value in relation to lands and not to any compensation for dismantling of the factory and also for its shifting and loss of future earnings. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he has offered to pay higher court fee and invited our attention to ground No. 24. It is stated therein - -'the appellants pray for an award of Rs. 1000 per cent, but restrict their claim to the tune of Rs. 233 per cent, and are prepared to pay court fee for the balance amount, if awarded by this Honourable court in excess of Rs. 233 per cent". It is significant to note that even in ground No. 24 there is no reference to the compensation for loss of earnings, shifting of factory, etc. In any case, the offer made by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot commend acceptance in view of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. S.4 of the Act provides that no document which is chargeable with fee under the Act shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in or be acted on or furnished by any court including the High Court unless in respect of such document there has been paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated as chargeable under the Act. It follows from the language of S.4 that payment of court fee has to precede the institution of the appeal. There are only two exceptions and those exceptions are to be found in Ss. 35 and 36. S.35 deals with a suit for accounts, and it is provided that the fee shall be computed on the amount sued for as estimated in the plaint. Sub -S. (2) of S.35 provides that "where the amount payable to the plaintiff as ascertained in the suit is in excess of the amount as estimated in the plaint, no decree directing payment of the amount as so ascertained shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the amount so ascertained, is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the court may fix, the decree shall be limited to the amount to which the fee paid extends." To the same effect there are provisions in S.36 relating to suits for dissolution of partnership. In the absence of similar provision with reference to proceedings of this nature enacted by the legislature we cannot by a judicial decision extend the principle of the provisions of Ss.35 and 36 so as to permit the claimants to pay additional court fee based on the contingency of the Court awarding a higher compensation than that set out in the memo of valuation. We, therefore, do not entertain the claim of the appellants for compensation with the reference to the shifting of the factory, loss of earnings, etc. The appeal is accordingly allowed with proportionate costs. The second respondent being the vendor of the lands has been impleaded as a formal party. There is no question of awarding costs in his favour or against him.