COLLECTOR OF DACCA Vs. ASHRAF ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are eight appeals by the Collector of Dacca and arise out of eight references under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, at the instance of the proprietors of the land which have been compulsorily acquired for the purposes of certain sewerage works in the town of Dacca. The Collector valued the interest of the proprietors on a certain basis. He first of all determined the average rate of rent per bigha which the tenants were liable to pay to the proprietors and he ascertained the same at the rate of Rs. 2 per bigha. After ascertaining it the Collector was of opinion that the proprietors will get 25 years purchase of this after deduction of the collection charges and the Government revenue. To this the Collector added in favour of the proprietors a further sum equal to 1/4 share of the compensation assessed for tenancy interest on account of the loss of selami. This was the method adopted with reference to lands in the occupation of tenants. With regard to the lands in the khas possession of the proprietor he valued his interest for garden and tank at Rs. 500, for raised bhiti at Rs. 400, for ordinary bhiti at Rs. 375, for raised nal at Rs. 325, for ordinary nal at Rs. 300, for kacha road at Rs. 125 and for nala at Rs. 50 per bigha.

(2.) Eight references were made before the Land Acquisition Judge of Dacca and it was contended before him that the Land Acquisition Deputy Collector has adopted a wrong method for ascertaining the compensation of the tenanted lands. It was argued that the proper method which the Collector should have adopted was to ascertain the market value of the lands and then to deduct the value of the occupancy right for awarding compensation to the proprietors. Adopting this as the basis on which compensation should be allowed the Land Acquisition Judge proceeded to determine the market value of the lands in these eight references, and after considering several documents, in particular two which were deeds of sale prior to the date of the declaration, he has increased the amount of compensation to a much larger sum than that awarded by the Deputy Collector. In these eight cases, it is to be noticed no evidence was given on behalf of the Collector of Dacca as will appear from the order made in the order sheet, namely, order No. 26, dated 22 July, 1927. The Land Acquisition Judge has increased the compensation and the increase is shown at p. 48 of the printed paper book in part 1 of Appeal No. 192 of 1928. It is not therefore necessary to state in detail the amounts by which the compensation has been increased by the Land Acquisition Judge.

(3.) Against this order of the Land Acquisition Judge increasing the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector these eight appeals have been preferred by the Collector of Dacca, and the main argument which has been advanced for the appellant by the learned Senior Government Pleader has been that the Land Acquisition Judge has adopted a wrong method in awarding compensation to the proprietors and he contends that the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector was the right method. The respondents have however pointed out that this contention put forward on behalf of the Collector is opposed to the principle laid down in the Land Acquisition Act and is opposed to a series of authorities both of this Court and of the other High Courts in India. The true test for determining the amount of compensation which ought to be awarded to the proprietors is to ascertain the market value of the land. As was pointed out by Sir John Wallis, Chief Justice of Madras as he then was, in the case of Raja Pittapuram V/s. Revenue Divisional Officer, Coconada AIR 1919 Mad 222, the correct rule in all cases of this class is that the land to be acquired is to be valued in the first instance including all interests in it and the amount so ascertained has then to be apportioned amongst the parties, interested according to their interests This is also the view which has been recently adopted by the learned Chief Justice and Mukerji, J., in an unreported decision in F.A., 6 of 1929 which was decided on 19 February 1931 and the precise argument which has now been advanced on behalf of the Collector of Dacca was advanced in that case on behalf of the Collector of Jalpaiguri and was negatived. Having regard to these authorities the contention of the Collector regarding the principle on which compensation should be awarded must be negatived.