SADANANDASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of LAC. Nos. 372, 364 and 367 of 1969, disposed of by the Civil Judge, Chitradurga. ( 2 ) THREE houses were acquired under a preliminary notification dt. 14-7-1965 issued under S. 4 (1) of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act. The houses were situated in Chikkarahalli village within the Municipal limits of Cavangere City, the purpose of the acquisition being the extension of the regulated market area. Since the claimants had been granted free sites in lieu of part of the compensation for the acquired properties, the land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation only in respect of the super-structures. The awards which have been marked as Exhibits in the lower Court only refer to the amounts determined by the Engineer of the public Works Department, who drew up the estimate and costs of the acquired properties. The actual calculation made by the said Engineer is not incorporated in the award, nor is it filed before the lower Court. The land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 7, Rs. 6-75p. and Rs. 6-50p. per square foot to the claimants in LAC. Nos. 372/69, 364/69 and 367 of 1969 respectively. The learned Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to rs. 14, Rs. 13-50 and Rs. 13 respectively in the said cases. The present appeals are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the enhancement made by the learned Civil Judge. ( 3 ) THE first point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the claimants are not entitled to any enhancement since they did not file their claim petition before the Land Acquisition Officer when notices under S 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were served on them. Under S. 25 (3) of the act, it is provided that when a person interested has omitted to make the claim pursuant to the notice under Section 9 for sufficient reason, the amount awarded by the Court may exceed the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants contended before the lower Court that on account of certain custom, they had to keep indoors due to epidemic having broken out and that they could not file their claim statements within time after receipt of the notice under S. 9. This plea has been found to have been justified by the lower Court. The claimants contended before the lower Court that on account of certain custom, they had to keep indoors due to epidemic having broken out and that they could not file their claim statements within time after receipt of the notice under S. 9. This plea has been found to have been justified by the lower Court. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the claimants had made out sufficient reason for not having filed their claim statements before the Land acquisition Officer. In these circumstances, we do not find sufficient reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Court. ( 4 ) IT is next urged on behalf of the appellant that the claimants have failed to establish that the amount of compensation awarded by the Land acquisition Officer is inadequate, that they have not adduced sufficient evidence to support their claim for enhancement and that the lower Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation payable to the claimants. It is contended that even according to the evidence of PW. 3, the Commissioner appointed by the Court, each square foot of building was worth only Rs. 10 in the year 1964 and that the lower Court should nut have enhanced the compensation in any case to a rate higher than Rs. 10 per square foot. It is further contended that the burden was entirely on the claimants to show that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not sustainable. In Gurujar v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1964) 1 Mys. L. J. 558, it has been held that there is no inflexible rule that in every ca,se in which the claimant complains that the compensation awarded is inadequate, the onus is entirely upon him to prove the incorrectness of the award, and that if it appears from the award that the enquiry made by the Land acquisition Officer is either defective or that the award rests upon irrelevant materials or upon data which had not been proved or established, it would be as much the duty of the claimant to establish the truth of his own caste as it would be the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to sustain his award. It is further held that one of the methods permitted by law for assessing the compensation payable to a person whose building is acquired, is, to make the valuation of the land on which the building is constructed and to make a valuation of the property standing on it and to regard the aggregate of these two sums of money as the compensation payable, and that for the purpose of making a valuation of the superstructure, what should be done is to estimate the cost of construction of the building on the date of the preliminary notification and to deduct from it the depreciation having regard to the age of the building. In that case, the Executive Engineer who was asked to make a report of the value of the super-structure had made a very obscure report. It was not clear whether he estimated the cost of the construction of the super-structure on the date of the preliminary notification. There was also no indication in that report whether on the date of the preliminary notification, it was possible to bring into existence a construction at the rates specified in his report. It was further not clear from his report whether the rates employed by him were the rates prevailing on the date of the preliminary notification or whether they were rates prevailing at some other antecedent point of time. In that case, the Land Acquisition Officer rested his decision entirely upon the report of the Executive Engineer who was not called upon to give evidence and the claimants had no opportunity to cross- examine him in regard to the validity of the data adopted by him. It is under these circumstances that this Court held in that case that it was the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to support his award when the claimants questioned its correctness. ( 5 ) IN the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer has based his decision as to the value oi the super-structure entirely on the report of the Engineer of the PWD. Apart from a reference to the report of the said Engineer, it is not clear from the award as to the basis which was adopted by the said Engineer for arriving at the value of the superstructure in each of these cases. Apart from a reference to the report of the said Engineer, it is not clear from the award as to the basis which was adopted by the said Engineer for arriving at the value of the superstructure in each of these cases. Neither the Land Acquisition Officer nor the Engineer who calculated the value of the structure has been examined in the case. As stated above, the report of the Engineer who made the calculations and arrived at the value of the super-structure has also not been made available to the Court. Under these circumstances in the present case also, the onus was on the Land Acquisition Officer to establish the validity and the adequacy of the compensation awarded by him. It is in view of these circumstances we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. ( 6 ) THE Commissioner appointed in the trial Court is a registered contractor and has been examined as PW. 3. He drew up the report, Ex. P-1, and Ex. P2 is the statement showing the valuation of the buildings. Ex. P3 is the mahazar which merely says that the Commissioner inspected the spot and took measurements. In Ext. P1, it is stated that only the actual cost of construction is worked out adopting PWD schedule, rates. He has fuitner stated that the acquired buildings are in a good locality, i e. , nearer to Davanagere City which is growing lastly on healthy sunouldings and that even exchange of another site elsewhere in each case will not equalise the value of the sites on which the buildings are situated. It is also in the evidence of other witnesses that the value of the sites given free to the claimants is much lower than the value of the lands on which the acquired buildings stood. Ex. P2 is the statement prepared by PW 3, the Commissioner, showing the valuation of the buildings acquired. Though it gives the length, breadth and the area and the amount of valuation, no further details are given as to the kind of materials used, kind of bucks, kind of wood used etc. According to the evidence of PW. 3, he has classified the buildings acquired into four types A, B, C, D, but he has not stated the basis for such a classification. According to the evidence of PW. 3, he has classified the buildings acquired into four types A, B, C, D, but he has not stated the basis for such a classification. He has further stated in cross- examination that he has not constructed houses in Chikkanahalli village nor has he purchased any houses. He has further stated that he has purchased materials for the type of the construction of the houses in question but he has no references for the same. Neither from the report submitted by him nor from his evidence is it possible to make out whether he calculated the value of the buildings on the basis of the cost of construction, if constructed new. and made allowance for depreciation having regard to the age of the building or whether he took into consideration the value of the land on which the construction was put up or not. The proper valuation of the buildings would have been to arrive at the cost of the entire property acquired, namely the aggregate of the costs of the buildings ard the cost of the land as well. This has not been done by pw. 3. He has merely arrived at the valuation of the super-structure only. According to his own evidence the land on which the buildings stood was much more valuable than the lands given free as part of the compensation to the claimants. Hence it cannot be said that the lower Court should have acted upon the valuation arrived at by PW. 3. We have therefore, to see whether the lower Court was justified in enhancing the compensation as it has done. Even if we take the lower figure mentioned by him, namely, Rs. 15 per square foot, the rate of compensation awarded by the trial Court cannot be considered to be unreasonable. ( 7 ) AS stated above, the correct way of valuation would have been to arrive at the cost of the super-structure as well as the cost of the site on which the buildings stood as on the date of the preliminary notification. This couid be done by estimating the value of the new building as on that date and making allowance for depreciation according to the age of the building on the date of the preliminary notification. This has not been done by PW. This couid be done by estimating the value of the new building as on that date and making allowance for depreciation according to the age of the building on the date of the preliminary notification. This has not been done by PW. 3, and it is not known whether such a method was adopted by the engineer who made the estimate which is the basis of the award of the land Acquisition Officer. Under these circumstances, the lower Court was justified in acting upon the evidence of PWs. 1 and 4. The highest rate awarded by the lower Court is Rs. 14 per square foot. It is lower than the lower figure mentioned by the mason PW. 4. Under the circumstances, we find no sufficient reason to interfere with the amount of compensation fixtd by the lower Court. ( 8 ) IT is urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader that a fresh opportunity should be given to the Land Acquisition Officer to adduce evidence in support of the awards made by him. It is not the case of the appellant that sufficient opportunity was not available to him in the lower Court. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to grant Ms request. ( 9 ) THESE appeals, therefore, are dismissed. Since the claimants (respondents) are absent and unrepresented, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .