BHARAT NATH MITRA Vs. RAM SWARUP SERAOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petnr is one of the superior landlords of C. S. plots Nos. 316, 317 and 342 in Mouza Malipanchghara, which have been acquitted under the Land Acquisition Act I (1) of 1894. An objection as regards the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Collector was made by the present petnr and his co -sharer opposite party No. 6. They also objected to the apportionment of the amount which had been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector as the compensation to be paid for the value of the land. The Collector made a reference accordingly, both as regards valuation and as regards apportionment.

(2.) IT appears that the Land Acquisition Collector awarded a total amount of Rs. 22,303 -9 -9 for all the interests of this land and out of this he apportioned Rs. 2 -7 -3 to each of the two proprietors; Rs. 207/ - to the intermediate tenure -holders for plots Nos. 216 and 217; Rs. 80 -8 -0 for another intermediate interest in the same plots; Rs. 128 -4 -9 for the holder of the intermediate interest in plot No. 343; and Rs. 21,871 -15 -5 to the tenant Ram Swarup Seraogi, who is in possession of the plots Nos. 316, 317 and 343. In their objection to this apportionment the proprietors alleged that the interest of this tenant Ram Swarup Seraogi is only one of the thika tenant, so that according to them he is entitled to nothing more than the value of the structures. It was also contended by the proprietors that in any case the tenant is entitled to get the value of the land only on the basis that it is agricultural land, as according to them the land was merely agricultural at the time it was let out to this tenant and acquired its present character much later. None of the other parties raised any objection to the valuation of the Land Acquisition Collector.

(3.) THERE can be no doubt that the most desirable thing is that the amount to be apportioned should first be determined before the task of apportionment is taken up. It is pointed out by Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the petnr that the peculiar circumstance of this case is that his client would be fighting the valuation case in vain if the Land Acquisition Collector's decision that only Rs. 2 -7 -3 is the share which he is himself entitled to as the superior landlord stands.