Ramaprasada Rao, J.: — These five appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, on references made to the Court by the aggrieved parties-claimants under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’. For the construction of a maternity home in Sundararajapuram area in Madurai town an extent of 31,467 sq. ft. in the first instance and an additional extent of 4,588 sq. ft. in S. No. 2003/1 was acquired pursuant to a notification under section 4(1) of the Act dated 22nd September, 1965, and a Government Memorandum dated 16th March, 1970, issued by the Government under section 49 (2) of the Act. We shall in the course of our judgment consider the necessity for the Government to act under section 49 (2) of the Act. Pursuant to the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act, the original extent of 31,467 sq. ft. in the above survey number was acquired and it is in consequence of the memorandum dated 16th March, 1970, communicated to the respondents on 9 th April, 1970, that the additional extent of 4,588 sq. ft. was acquired. Each respondent has an interest in one-fifth of the compulsorily acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer, after due enquiry, passed an award on 30th May, 1970, and awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.04 per sq. foot, uniformly for the acquired area and evaluated the same as on 22nd September, 1965. On a reference by the claimants, the civil Court in its judgment appealed against, evaluated that portion of the land of an extent of 31,467 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 2003/1-A-2 at Rs. 5 per sq. foot as on 22nd September, 1965, and the other additional extent of 4,588 sq. ft. in T.S. No. 2003/1-A-1 at Rs. 7 per sq. ft. as on 16th March, 1970. The State aggrieved by the grant of compensation made by the Court below has preferred the above five appeals. The claimants, as respondents, have filed cross-objections in each of the appeals and are claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 6 per sq. foot for the area comprised in T.S. No. 2003/1-A-2 and at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. foot for the area comprised in T.S. No. 2003/1-A-1.

2. At the initial stage when the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was made, it was proposed to acquire a part of the portion in T.S. No. 2003/1 out of which was carved out T.S. No. 2003/1-A-2 of an extent of 31,467 sq. ft. By the said proposal, an extent of 4.588 sq.ft. now comprised in T.S. No. 2003/1-A-1 was left out. The owners raised an objection that the severed bit of 4,588 sq. ft. would be of no use to them and therefore they demanded that the entire extent should be acquired. In order to avoid any excessive claim for severance compensation, the Government, on the advice of the appropriate and concerned authorities, issued orders on 16th March, 1970, invoking section 49 (2) of the Act directing the acquisition of the left-over area. This order of the Government was duly served on the owners on 9th April, 1970. After issuing due notices for enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the valuation as above and which was increased by the civil Court on a reference.

3. It is common ground that each of the respondents is entitled to 7,211 sq. ft. in the acquired land. They filed various statements of objections before the civil Court and contended that the Land Acquisition Officer was wrong in having uniformly valued the land which is the subject-matter of the acquisitions and he ought to have made a distinction between the land originally acquired pursuant to the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act and the land subsequently directed to be acquired by the Government memorandum dated 16th March, 1970, under section 49 (2) of the Act. They sought for a distinct and separate valuation of the lands accordingly as on the two dates referred to above. On merits,- their contention was that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was very low.

4. In so far as the lie of the prope

Click Here to Read the rest of this document