The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court cannot award compensation in excess of what is claimed, and in the absence of a claim, the court cannot award compensation.

( 1 ) THESE are an appeal and a cross-appeal, preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, west Coast Road, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as L. A. O.) and the claimant respectively. They are directed against an award made in O. P. No. 115 of 1963, on 28-11-1966. by the principal Civil Judge, Man-galore, they are therefore, disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) BY a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the l. A. Act) published on 9-2-1961, 54 cents of dry land in S. no. 43/6-A- 1-B of Kanakandy village was acquired for the purpose of construction of an approach road to Nethravathi bridge near Mangalore. There were also some buildings on the land whose total extent, in the ownership of the claimant, was 1 acre 20 cents and formed a part of the southern portion of the aforesaid number. It is not in dispute that the said land was sloping and really formed part of a small hill, and the village of Kanakandy. in which the said land is situate, was situated lust outside the municipal limits of Mangalorc Town.

( 3 ) BEFORE adverting specifically to the compensation awarded by the Court in regard to various heads of claims, it will be necessary to set out the claims made by the claimant, in response to the notice issued under Section 9, and in his application for a reference under Section 18 of the l. A. Act. in order to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the parties. It is relevant to note that some of the claims relative to severance and injurious affection are mostly based on the proposed road lying about 40' (feet) below the level of the remaining portions of the above survey number. By the formation of the said road the land became divided into two strips the eastern portion having an area of 16 cents and the western portion 56 cents. It seems to us prima facie that the formation of such a road by the acquiring authority cannot be made a basis for determination of damages payable under the L. A. Act It is clearly a case of exercise of a right of ownership vested in the acquiring authority, and. if at all, it may give rise to a cause of action in tort, arising subsequent to such acquisition. We however, do not propose to express any concluded opinion on this question, as the compensation awarded in regard to some of these lands is either small or clearly not supported by an appropriate claim made before the L. A. p. , and, therefore, the questions arising in this behalf can be disposed of otherwise.

( 4 ) BEFORE the L. A. O. , the Claimant claimed compensation for land at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre, and for value of improvements and damages for severance, injurious affection and loss of earnings', as follows:

(1) Rs. 1200. 00 towards 2 pillars and gates;

(2) Rs. 1,700. 00 towards loss of use of an approach road;

(3) Rs. 2,700. 00 towards compound wall;

(4) Rs. 9,000. 00 towards cost of a well;

(5) Rs. 11,000. 00 towards cost of 'whole building' although a

small portion only of such buildings was

affected;

(6) Rs. 260. 00 towards expenditure incurred for digging pits

for planting cocoanut sapling;

(7) Rs. 1,000. 00 towards the increased cost of labour , for

digging another well

(8) Rs. 10,000. 00 towards 'loss of earnings'

( 5 ) IN addition to the above, a claim for injurious affection caused on account of the cutting off of the eastern bit of land of an extent of 16 cents, has been advanced alternatively. It is in the claimant's own words, as follows:-

"the claimant, therefore, submits the Government is either bound to acquire the said eastern block of land with the buildings etc. . and pav the claimant the value etc. . thereof, or pay an amount equal to the value thereof as damages. "

In this connection it is pertinent to note that the first part of the claim has relevance to the application of the provisions of Section 49 of the L. A. Act. and the second part nowhere specifies the sum claimed in concrete terms. But it seems to us

Click Here to Read the rest of this document