SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA Vs. NARAIN KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of certain land acquisition proceedings. The property concerned consists of a house and outhouses belonging to the respondent situate within the Meerut Cantonment. The land on which it stands was held by him from the Government on what is commonly known as the cantonment tenure. Grants to individuals of lands within cantonments are regulated by General Order of the Governor-General in Council, No.179, dated September 12, 1836, which has been repeated in a series of subsequent regulations. Their Lordships had occasion to consider the nature of the cantonment tenure in a land acquisition case which came before the Board recently, Hari Chand v. Secretary of State far India (1939) L.R. 66 I.A. 258, s.c. 42 Bom. L.R. 138, from the Peshawar Cantonment. In that case their Lordships observed that (page 259) - Where the Government grant any rights to individuals within the area of the cantonments one of the cardinal conditions is that the Government retain the power of resumption at any time on giving one months notice. If they give that notice they are required to pay the value of such buildings as may have been authorized to be erected.

(2.) IN this case the property of the) respondent had been in the possession of the Secretary of State on a lease for ten years at Rs. 325 a month, with a covenant to repair on the part of the tenant. The lease began on July 1, 1931, and rent had been paid by the Government up to May 10, 1934. IN the meanwhile, the Government of INdia gave notice of resumption to the owner, resumed the land and instructed the Government of the United Provinces to acquire the buildings under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) for the public purpose of housing Government officers.

(3.) THE District Judge estimated from the evidence that the value of the building if newly constructed would be Rs. 30,858. From this amount he deducted Rs. 8,042 for depreciation. Government's claim for reduction of a further amount representing what it would have cost to bring the buildings into a reasonable state of repair was disallowed by him for reasons which it is not now necessary to examine, as the point was not taken in appeal to the High Court by the Secretary of State; and his learned counsel has merely brought it to their Lordships' notice in the course of summarising the conclusions of the District Judge. Deducting the amount of depreciation the District Judge held that the respondent is entitled to Rs. 22,816 together with the usual fifteen per cent, allowance for compulsory acquisition and also interest at six per cent, on the excess amount from the date of the award to the date of his order.