LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. JAMNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this appeal is as regards the claimant's right to receive compensation for the loss of prospective earnings. THE land involved in this case is the southern half of survey No.176 of Juhu, which belonged to one Narsi Monjee. THE land was notified for acquisition on June 15, 1937, and the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on December 2, 1937. THE land was actually taken possession of by the authorities on October 5, 1938.

(2.) THE contention of the claimant was that he owned a cigarette factory at Santa Cruz, and in order to expand his business he had purchased the land in question in 1935 with the object of building thereon a factory for manufacturing cigarettes. This factory was intended to be capable of manufacturing three times the quantity of cigarettes manufactured in the Santa Cruz factory. For this purpose the claimant had obtained a license from the Collector of Bombay and had also got certain plans prepared and sanctioned by the authorities concerned. THE work of building the factory had proceeded up to three feet above the plinth level when the land was notified for acquisition. By reason of that notification the work of erecting the factory could not be proceeded with, and ultimately owing to the land being finally acquired, the project of building a factory thereon had to be given up. For this reason the claimant contended that he should be compensated for the loss of his prospective earnings for a period of one year on the basis of the profits which he made on the Santa Cruz factory. He, therefore, claimed, on the estimate made by his experts, Rs. 1,84,500 for the loss of earnings.

(3.) EVEN if we are wrong in our view that the expression "loss of earnings" in Section 23 (iv) refers to loss caused on account of acquisition to a running business and not to prospective business, we think that the damages must be proximate damages and must not be too remote. As has been pointed out in Section 56 of Vol. VI of Halsbury's "laws of England", 2nd edition, "if the right to compensation is established, the amount of compensation is commonly determined by the ordinary rules applicable to damages in actions of tort". And as stated in Section 51 of the same volume, "damages which would foe too remote to be recovered in an action cannot be recovered by way of compensation. " In the present instance we consider that the damages claimed by the respondents are too remote. In this case only the foundation of the building in which a business was to be run subsequently had been laid. There were numerous uncertain factors which would have come into play before the building could be completed and business begun. The loss on account of acquisition in the earnings of such a business must, in our opinion, be regarded as too remote to justify any compensation being granted.