COLLECTOR OF CHINGLEPUT Vs. KRISHNAVENI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in a matter wherein the claimant, the respondent to the present appeal, is claiming compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition by Government of 377 55 acres of land. As to 366 acres 23 cents the claimant has melwaram rights. As to the remaining 11 acres 32 cents the claimant claims as owner of the land. Of this land 11 32 acres are burdened by ponds, and 3 acres 50 cents are burdened by roads or pathways. The lands are all situate in Mambalam village and the notification is dated, 25 May 1920 which is before the passing of the Amending Act of 1923, so that the critical date in determining the market value of the rights acquired is the date of the notice under Section 6 which is 25 May aforesaid. The land acquisition officer, as to the item for roads and pathways, has allowed nothing for the reason, stated by him at pp. 11 and 12 of the pleadings, that the pathways are in public use and are to be used for the public. As regards the kuttais or ponds he finds that when they are silted up the zamindar, the claimant herein, has been granting them on patta. He accordingly awards compensation at varying rates: for S. No. 70/4 and 86, Rs. 450 an acre and for S. No. 106/1-A and 1-0, 114/1 and 131/24 at Rs. 500 an acre. S. No. 109 being on a higher level he values it at the same rate as the adjoining fields less Rs. 200 an acre, that is at Rs. 1,000 an acre. As regards the melwaram rights he takes the estimated annual value, but deducts the out goings and gives 20 years purchase. The Subordinate Judge largely increased this award and valued pathways at Rs. 2,700 an acre, the ponds at Rs. 2,250 an acre; and as to the melwaram rights, as to three quarters of the area he gave the same; as to one quarter he held that these were building sites and fixed the value at what he calls the mean between the maximum and the minimum rates, viz. Re. 1-8-0 per ground.

(2.) Before examining the law and the evidence in this case it is desirable to advert to the form in which the claim is framed. By letter dated 4 December 1923 a claim is put forward on behalf of the zamindar, then a minor, for compensation for all poramboke such as pathways, ponds, channels, etc., in the Mambalam zamindari. From this time onwards it appears quite clear that the claim in respect of rights in the land as distinct from melwaram rights over the land are made in respect of pathways and ponds in the area in question. It was urged before us that the true way of viewing this case was to take the market value of the whole area as land and deduct the value of interest other than that of the claimant and award the claimant the balance. In support of this proposition two cases, Rajah of Pittapuram V/s. Revenue Divisional Officer, Cocanada AIR 1919 Mad 222, at p. 646 of 42 Mad. and Rohan Lal V/s. Collector of Etah All. et seq., were chiefly relied upon. It was urged that, if the principle laid down by these cases, which follows the decision in Collector of Belgaum V/s. Bhimrao (1908) 10 Bom. LR 657, be followed one can regard the whole land as potential building sites, one can treat a pathway as adjacent to the land on either side of it so as to be saleable with the land on either side of it, and having arrived at that position one can say that the pathway has the same value as the land on either side of it and therefore that a pathway is a potential building-site. We see no reason to dissent from any of the observations made in the cases above mentioned; but those cases proceed on an entirely different set of facts and type of claim than is here made. Here a claim is made for compensation for the acquisition of three separate things: (1) land now used as pathways, (2) land now burdened with ponds, and (3) melwaram rights. We do not know what compensation has been paid to other persons admittedly interested in these separate things.

(3.) The three things are claimed for separately, evidence relating to them is taken separately, and there is no hint until the argument before us that the case was framed along the lines now indicated. We therefore decline to alter the nature of the claim at this stage and accordingly treat the claim as being in respect of three separate things. The result is that so far as the pathways are concerned one is concerned with a strip of land which from its very nature is not of a size or type that would render it likely to be marketable as a building site, quite apart from the question whether it is or is not burdened with an easement. As regards the ponds, we are concerned with claim for land covered by water and accordingly land that is not so likely to have a marketable value as buildings site as land not covered. As regards the melwaram rights, we are not concerned with land at all but with what is in effect a rent charge.