DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MADURA DIVISION Vs. MUTHIRULA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals in my opinion must fail. Objection is taken to the valuation of the District Judge in respect of plots 611 F, 611 G, 383, A2. The District Judge has awarded Es. 1,143 per acre for all these plots. Mr. Ramesam contends that these are back lands and that there-, fore they ought not to be valued at the same rate as the lands with frontage. But I think the District Judge is right in holding that the purchase by the Madura Mills Company in 1915 of lands similarly situated furnishes a good index of the proper market price. We have considered the question carefully and are not prepared to dissent from the District Judge s estimate.

(2.) The appeals are dismissed with costs. The time for payment will be 3 months from this date.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been taken with reference to the memoranda of objections. The memoranda of objections relate not merely to the plots covered by the appeals but also to other plots, though all the plots to which the memoranda of objections relate are the subject of the same petition to which the appeals relate. I should take it that each petition forms a separate case in the land acquisition proceedings and the award on each petition is a separate decree. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act incorporates by reference the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code applicable to appeals from original decrees. Order XLI, Rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Code provides for memorandum of objections in these words : " Any respondent though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree may not only support the decree on any of the grounds decided against him in the court below, but take any cross objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal provided he has filed such objection in the appellate court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the appellate court may see fit to allow." The section is expressed in very general language, but after having heard the matter fully discussed I have little doubt that a memorandum of objections may be filed against the decree as a whole or against a part of it which may not be the aubject matter of the appeal. One of the strongest cases that have been brought to our notice is that reported in Kamat v. Kamat (1884) I.L.R 8 B 368 the judgment of Sargent, C.J. There the appeal was with respect to costs disallowed by the lower court and the memorandum of objections related to the decree on the merits and it was held that such cross objections could lie. There is also a Full Bench ruling of this Court in Munisami Chetty v. Abbu Reddi (1913) I.L.R. 38 M. 705 : 27 M.L.J. 740. There by a memorandum of objections a question which affected a co-respondent to the appeal was allowed to be raised. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Bombay High Court Raghunatha v. Secretary of State (1905) I.L.R. 29 B. 514. The case there arose out of a matter under the City of Bombay Improvement Act. The appeal was with reference to a certain percentage allowed for water- cess while the memorandum of objections raised a question as regards the allowance for vacancies, and it was held that such a memorandum of objections was valid Mr. Ramesam while conceding that under the Civil Procedure Code it is not necessary that the memorandum of objections should be only with reference to that part of the decree which is the subject matter of the appeal, argues that Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act makes a difference so far as appeals in land acquisition cases are concerned. He lays stress on the provision of that section "an appeal shall lie to the H igh Court from the award or from any part of the award of the court in any proceedings under this Act" and argues that the legislature in expressly saying that an appeal shall lie from any part of the award wanted to imply that the decree under appeal must be taken to be that part of it to which objection was taken by the appellant. He then argues that the memorandum of objections must be confined to the subject matter of the appeal itself as that is the decree that is appealed against within the meaning of Section 54. But what Section 54 enacts is in no way different from the ordinary provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, because an appeal may be filed against the entire decree or any part of it. Once an appeal is filed, a memorandum of objections may be filed by the respondent with reference to any portion of the decree to which he objects. I do not think therefore that Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act makes any difference in the law and I hold that the respondents are entitled to press their memorandum of objections.