Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act does not bar a suit for the value of excess land occupied by the acquiring authority beyond the extent acquired under the Act, and Appendix VIII to Board Standing Order No. 34-A is not applicable where there is no evidence of any difference between the registered area and the actual area available on the ground.

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 32 of 1966 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Nagapattinam, who lost before the Courts below is the appellant herein.

2. The plaintiff was the owner of the land in T.S.No. 1741. In that land an extent of 1 acre and 1,609 sq. ft. was sought to be acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. From Exhibit B-9, the copy of the award, it appears that the notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 27th March, 1963 and the declaration under section 6 (1) of the Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 16th October, 1963. Thereafter, the award was passed on 13th August, 1964. Admittedly, the declaration under section 6(1) of the Act referred to the extent of the land sought to be acquired only as 1 acre and 1,609 sq. ft. and the award also provides for compensation only for that extent of land. The case of the appellant is that when subsequently in October, 1964, he went to the spot, he found that the area enclosed between the boundary stones was actutally 1 acre and 3,240 sq. ft. in excess of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, As soon as he found this excess, he moved the revenue authorities in this behalf. Exhibit A-1 is a notice issued under the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 by the Firka Revenue Inspector. Though the year is not mentioned, the notice is shown to be 15th August, and from the subsequent proceedings, it will be clear that it was 15th August, 1964. This notice showed the sub-divisions of T.S. No. 1749 as 1-A measuring 18,767 sq. ft. and 1-B measuring 1 acre and 1,609 sq. ft. the latter being the land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. That notice also stated that any appeal with reference to that notice will have to be preferred to the Taluk Tahsildar within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the notice. According to the appellant, he received the notice on 17th September, 1964 and on 12th October, 1964, he sent a communication to the Tahsildar, Nagapattinam, under Exhibit A-9 requesting him to supply him with a copy of the field map within a week or ten days, so as to enable him to take proceedings by way of objection or otherwise. He sent an appeal dated 11th November, 1964 to the Tahsildar under Exhibit A-l0 complaining of taking possession of the excess land. He sent additional objections under Exhibit B-1 dated 3oth November, 1964 to the Tahsildar. The objection petition sent by him was returned to the appellant on 8th December, 1964 by the Tahsildar, Nagapattinam, stating that the objection might be sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam, who was the Land Acquisition Officer and who passed the award. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam, by his endorsement dated 25th January, 1965, marked as Exhibit A-4 informed the appellant that the petition was being forwarded to the Tahsildar, Nagapattinam, who was the competent authority to dispose of it. Under Exhibit A-5 dated 22nd February, 1965, the Tahsildar, Nagapattinam, informed the appellant as follows:

“The adjusted area adopted in the above case of acquisition is correct as per instructions contained in Appendix VIII to B.S.O. No. 34-A. The petition is, therefore, rejected.”

It is thereafter after issue of notice, the appellant instituted the present suit claiming the value of the excess land of 1631 sq. ft. and some compensation for a certain pipe line totalling Rs. 1,206-06.

3. As far as the present second appeal is concerned, it is confined only to the claim of value of land amounting to Rs. 750-26 P. since the appellant had obtained relief with regard to the other claim from the lower appellate Court. The respondent herein filed a written statement. In that written statement, there was no denial that the respondent took possession of or occupied the excess extent of the land. All that was contended in the writ