SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA DEVARU BY ADALTHEDAR OR TRUSTEE, M. NARAYANA ACHARYA AND ANR. Vs. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of two, among other references, made to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara on the acquisition of about 25 acres and 10 cents of wet, dry and garden lands in the village of Jeppinamogru adjoining Mangalore town. The acquisition was for the agricultural Department to open a paddy breeding station. The material notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are dated 29th June, 1943 and 21st September, 1943. The Land Acquisition Officer adopted the method of capitalising the annual rent of the lands for the award of compensation. The same method was followed by the learned Subordinate Judge and it is common ground before us that it was the correct method. The learned Subordinate Judge substantially accepted the award of the acquiring officer in so far as the average rent of the wet lands was concerned, but increased the price of rice from Rs. 7 -4 -0 to Rs. 9 -5 -6 per mura. In respect of the garden lands, the learned Judge confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In respect of dry lands with which we are concerned only in A.S. No. 679 while the Land Acquisition Officer adopted a rental of Rs. 25 per acre as the annual rent for building purposes, the Court increased it to Rs. 60. The claimants have preferred the two appeals, and their learned Counsel has urged for a higher valuation for the wet lands and the dry lands. He did not seriously contest the valuation of the garden lands.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the valuation, a preliminary point which arises in A.S. No. 608 and which found acceptance with the Court below may be dealt with. The claimant filed a statement before the Land Acquisition Officer in response to a notice under Section 9 of the Act in which he put forward his claim in the following manner:

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge capitalised the net annual income at 20 years' purchase. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the number of years' purchase should be 33 1/3 relying upon the recent ruling in Radhakrishna Chettiar v. : (1948)2MLJ159 , In that case the subject -matter was a site measuring 7156 square feet with a building thereon situate in Kumbakonam. It was held that the number of years purchase to be adopted for capitalisation had to be arrived at by taking into account the interest yielding by Government securities at the time of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. One of the earlier decisions discussed therein was that of Krishnaswami Aiyangar and Horwill, JJ. in Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichinopoly v. Varadachari, (1944) 1 M.L.J. 142 which related to the acquisition of ryotwari land. Horwill, J., who delivered the judgment of the Bench made the following observations with reference to the principle applicable to the valuation of agricultural lands.