Ramaprasada Rao J.- In these four appeals preferred by the Government, common questions arise. The properties which are the subject-matter of these four appeals are comprised in Survey Numbers 29, 30/1, 30/2, 31, 32 and 34. The Extents acquired in each of the above survey fields can be catalogued thus:

In S. No. 29 Ac. 2 34 cents

In S. No. 30/1 Ac. 2 33 cents

In S. No. 30/2 Ac. 2 33 cents

In S. No. 31 Ac. 0 72 cents

In S. No. 32 Ac. 9 91 cents

In S. No. 34 Ac. 1 79 cents.

The above properties were acquired for the purpose of extending the Industrial Estate at Guindy. Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 29th September, 1965 the declaration under section 6, on 18th July, 1966 and on 3rd April, 1967 the properties were taken possession of by the State Government. The Land Acquisition Officer, who enquired into the market value of the properties, the superstructures, the wells and the interests of other affected parties, gave a compensation of Rs. 1,500 per ground and varied amounts in respect of the superstructures and the wells found in the properties. Whilst arriving at the net amount of compensation payable to the persons interested, the Land Acquisition Officer deducted a sum of Rs. 100 per ground in certain survey numbers as above which expense, according to the acquisition officer, was necessary to raise the level of the land by one foot. In one case, which is the subject-matter of appeal in A. S. No. 566 of 1970, there was a lessee who was in occupation of Survey No. 30/1 and Survey No. 34 pursuant to a lease entered into between him and the landlord under Exhibit C-16 dated 9th December, 1964 which is admittedly an unregistered lease deed in relation to immovable property which he obtained from the landlord Under the lease the lessee who is one of the claimants in L.A.C. No. 108 of 1967(subject-matter of appeal in A.S.No. 566 of 1970) claims that he levelled the land and manured it so as to raise jasmine plants, roses, marudhani, Rangoon malli etc., and that after having spent such considerable sums for reclamation of the land for using it for a particular purpose for which the lease of the land was taken, the lessee claimed that he was, on the average, earning a sum of Rs. 5,000 per year as and towards his income and that he has been deprived of such income during the unexpired period of the lease and on that ground, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,42,366. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded damages at the rate of Rs. 500 for eight years towards the loss of income for the unexpired period of the lease. The learned City Civil Judge, however, after considering the oral evidence, was satisfied that for the unexpired period of the lease, the lessee was entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per year for the eight years of lease to follow after acquisition. The State Government is aggrieved by the grant of Rs.3,000 per ground as such to the various owners of the lands which were the subject-matter of compulsory acquisition and they are equally aggrieved by the quantum of compensation given by the Court below with regard to the superstructures and the wells in the acquired lands and in particular, they would attack the grant of a sum of Rs. 1,000 per year as damages to the lessee for the unexpired period of eight years in L.A.C.No.108 of 1967 (subject-matter of Appeal No. 566 of 1970) and they would also contend that the deduction of Rs. 40 per ground by the Court below as the amount required for raising the level of the acquired land by one foot wherever it is necessary, is not fair and just and that the Land Acquisition Officer’s estimate of Rs. 100 per ground to raise the level of the land would be reasonable. Learned counsel for the claimants would sustain the judgment of the Court below in all its aspects. With regard to the reduction of the reclamation charges from Rs. 100 to Rs. 40 by the Court below, it is said that the said sum of Rs. 40 per ground was the scale adopted by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document