STATE OF U.P. Vs. KANWAR DURGESHWAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) arising out of proceedings relating to compensation in respect of the lands of the respondent under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter termed the "Act".

(2.) The respondent was a zamindar of village Khaitha Ghazipur in the district of Sitapur. In the draft compensation assessment roll which was prepared owing to the vesting of his land in the State under the Act the Compensation officer proposed payment of Rs. 7894-150 as compensation to the respondent; On the publication of the aforesaid assessment roll he preferred objection. According to the respondent certain items of annual income which should have been taken into consideration for determination of compensation had been ignored. Out of these we are concerned with two items only which were (a) the annual rent of Rs. 612-2-6 from Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Meholi together with another amount of Rs. 85/- payable by its proprietor and(b) Rs. 1593-11-0 being the annual rent for a plot let out to various persons as building sites. The Compensation Officer looked at the record of rights for the year 1859 Fasli where a total annual rental of only Rs. 125-14-5 had been entered. He looked further at the Kabuliatnamas which had been produced but did not accept them as good evidence of the rent which was being paid to (he respondent. It was observed that the Kabuliatnamas had been executed by two persons, Kishori Lal and Ajudhia Prasad Kishori Lal had not been examined as a witness and although Ajudhia Prasad had died no one else had been examined for proving that the rents mentioned in the Kabuli-atnamas were being actually paid. He also took other factors into consideration and held that the respondent had failed to establish that an income of Rs. 697-2 6 had actually accrued to him from the building site of the factory during the relevant year. With regard to the other item of Rs 1593-110 the Compensation Officer similarly held, after discussing the evidence, that the respondent had not substantiated his claim.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal to the High Court where the sole controversy centered on the proper appreciation of the evidence on both points. After fully discussing the material on the record the High Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was getting an income of Rs. 688-2 6 from Lakshmiji Sugar Mills, Meholi. As regards the other item of Rs. 1593-11-0 this is what the High Court said-