DT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER Vs. P NARASIMHA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of Ac. 0-23 cents, Ac.0-24 cents, Ac. 0-23 cents, and Ac. 1-10 cents of Annavarappadu village were acquired for the purpose of constructing bouses. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre and Rs. 20/- per coconut tree. O.P. Nos. 1 to 8 are connected with this acquisition. O.P. Nos. 5 to 8 were tried together. O.P. Nos. 1 to 4 are covered by a common judgment. The evidence adduced in all the matters is common. The learned judge after considering the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and R. Ws. 1 to 4 came to the conclusion that a higher amount at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre has to be granted as compensation and also awarded a higher rate to the coco nut trees Against tbe valuation of this enhancement, the above appeals have been filed by the Government.

(2.) In these appeals, the Government has contended that the valuationof capital method with regard to the fruit bearing trees cannot be entertained, particularly, when the price has been given to ths land itself. Where the land is there and the fruit bearing trees are also there, and if the Court wants to grant relief on the ground that they are fruit bearing trees, the land covered by the fruit bearing trees has to be deleted. Where stray trees are there the court is entitled to consider. But when large number of trees are there occupying large areas which results in the land holder not getting any good crop on the ground, naturally, the land value must be less. No doubt it has not been considered on those lines, but the potentialities of the land for the house sites have been made out. On that ground, the enhancement can be justified. The valuation of the coconut trees that has been taken appears to be incorrect. But as this Court has found that this land can be treated as house site and the amount that has been granted is not on the high side, it has been confirmed.

(3.) Sri P.L. Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel for the claimantscontended that against the order in O.P. No. 8, the Government filed an appeal and the same was dismissed in the S.R. stage. Sri Sharma's contention is that since the appeal against the decree in O.P. No. 8 of 1984 which forms part of a common judgment has been dismissed for default, it must be deemed that the appeals against the other O.Ps, have also been dismissed. It is also contended that the compensation that has been granted in the other O.Ps. in view of the common order must be deemed to be confirmed. In support of his contention, he relied upon Sheddan Singh vs. Daryad Kunwar. In that case also, for technical defects, the appeal against the main suit which decides the title has been dismissed. Since the learned Judge has felt that the decision on the title has become final by virtue of the technical defects, the question of considering the appeals with regard to ancillary relief doss not arise. In that case, the subject matter is one and the same. Declaration of title is there and recovery of crop etc., are there. The learned Judges extracted ths principles in para 13 as follows :