GHOUSE BEGUM Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise under the Land Acquisition Act. C.C.C.A No. 86/78 is at the instance of the Govern-mentand C.C.G.A.Nos. 105, 131,132, 133 and 147 of 1978, 30 and 80 of 1979 are at the instance of the claimants aggrieved by the quantum of compensation fixed by the Court below on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad passed an award dt 17-12 75 for acquiring houses bearing Nos. 6-1-112 to 113, 6-1-115 to 124 for the purpose of extension of the new Telephone Exchange at Saifabad. The notification under. Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette on 25-3-1971. The total extent of land is 1,466 square yards. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 1,430/- for H.Nos. 6-1-112 and 113; Rs 1,619-25 for H. No. 6-1-115 and 116; Rs. 4,182/- for H. Nos. 6-1-117 to 120; Rs. 765/- for H. No. 6-1-121; Rs. 918/- for H. No. 6-1-122; Rs. 1,24/- for H. No 6-1-123 and Rs. 3,060/- for H.No 6-1-124. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisitior Officer, the claimants sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The buildings are contiguous to the Telephone Exchange building which was already in existence. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is exhibited as Ex. B2 and the reference is Ex. B1. The first claimant claimed Rs, 47,175/- for the building as well as for the site. The second claimant claimed Rs. 14,100/- for the building and Rs. 23,550/- for the site, totalling to Rs. 37,650/-. The 3rd claimant claimed Rs. 14,400/- for the site and Rs. 47,250/- for the building and claimed in total Rs. 61,250/-. The 4th claimant claimed Rs. 5.640/- for the building and Rs. 16,800/- for the site and in total Rs. 22.440/-. The 5th claimant claimed Rs. 10,530/-for the site and Rs. 18,400- for the building, the total being Rs. 28,930/-. The 6th claimant claimed Rs. 5,400/- for the building and Rs. 17,250/- for the site and in total Rs. 22,650/-. The 7th claimant claimed Rs. 24,000/- for the building and Rs. 65,250/- for the site and thus claimed Rs, 89,250/- in toto. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the value of the properties on the basis of capitalization of the annul rental value arrived at after deducting 1/4th towards taxes, annual maintenance, etc., from out of the gross rental value and the net annual rent is capitalized at 17 years purchase. The Court below came to the conclusion that the Land Acquisition Officer did not enquire from the tenants or the neighbours as to the actual rent payable on the date of acquisition It is also considered that the prices of the lands have gone up since 1963. The Court below formulated the capitalisation method whereby the capital value of the properties has been assessed on the basis of rent at the rate of 0.40 ps. and 0.50 ps. per square foot depending upon the nature of structure. The Court below on the adoption of this capitalisation method arrived at the conclusion that the 1st claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,36,991-25, but however he claimed only Rs. 47,175/-; the 2nd claimant is entitled to Rs. 95,375/- whareas he claimed only Rs. 37,650/-; the 3rd claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,08,125/- whsreas he claimed Rs. 61,250/-; the 4th claimant is entitled to Rs. 80,888-75 whereas he claimed only Rs. 22,440/-; the 5th claimant is entitled to Rs. 77, 750/- whereas he claimed only Rs. 28, 930/-; the 6th claimant is entitled to Rs. 43,750'- whereas he claimed only Rs. 22,650/- and the 7th claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,88,750,'- whereas he claimed only Rs. 89,250/~. Though the Court below has come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to higher compensation on the basis of capitalisation method, but however restricted to the amounts claimed by them before the Land Aequisition Officer. Questioning such restriction, these appeals are filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants claimants contended that the Court below erred in restricting the compensation to the claim made by the claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer and the compensation should have been awarded on the basis of capitalization method adopted by him and there is no impediment or restriction in allowing the higher amount then the amount claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned counsel raised twofold contention that the claim supported by the calculation of the approved value given by the claimants cannot be equated to a claim set up by the 3 claimants and in any event the actual value of compensasstion can be given even under Section 25 of the Act. The learned counsel further contended that the claimants did not file any claims at all and they have filed only valuation reports indicating the value of the properties and in any event the Court below could have granted compensation higher than the claim made in view of Sections 25 (2) and (3) of the Act and further 15 days clear notice as required under Sec. 9 (2) of the Act has not been given and in case of such defective notice, the question of confining the compensation to the claim made or the applicability of Sec. 25 (2) and (3) is not called for. The learned Government Pleader contended that it cannot be disputed at this stage that the claim is not filed at all in view of the unequivocal observation made by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Court below and it is not disputed at any stage. It is further contended that the defect in the notice under Sac. 9 (2) does not bar the applicability of Sec. 25 (2) and (3) and the deficient claim, if any, is not covered by Sec. 25 of the Act.