SADASHEORAO KRISHNARAO BUTI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a reference made by the Collector to the District Judge, under Section 218(4), Land Revenue Act. It was decided in Govind Rao Badkas v. Collector of Nagpur (06) 2 N.L.R. 172 that in such a case all provisions of the Land Acquisition Act apply as nearly as may be, that is to say, not only the provisions dealing with the manner in which the compensation is to be calculated, but also as regards procedure, and that is admitted by everybody concerned. So we have to turn to the Land Acquisition Act to see how the rights of the parties should be adjusted. I have found it extremely difficult to deal with the case because I have little data to go on and because certain of the parties who, in my opinion, are interested are not before me. The persons Interested in this land are the malguzar (appellant) of the village and a number of tenants. The Collector fixed the market value at Rs. 5844-9-6 and everybody concerned accepted that. This figure is not challenged here. The Collector then distributed this sum between the malguzar and the tenants as follows: He decided that Rs. 5429-9-6 should be paid to the tenants and offered the balance of Rs. 415 to the malguzar. The tenants were content and accepted the money without objection. The malguzar was not satisfied and so asked for a reference to the civil Court. This was, done, but the provisions of Section 19, Land Acquisition Act, were not complied with and accordingly the matter was treated in the lower Court as one between the malguzar and the Collector, the tenants being ignored. I thought it right before deciding the appeal to hear the tenants and so notices were issued to them as also to the Advocate-General because the validity of certain directions in the Land Revenue Manual were called in question.

(2.) THE tenants were represented by Mr. G.R. Pradhan, advocate, and they protested against being, joined at this late stage. They said that they have no grievance and were content with the money paid to them, and added that it would be unjust to join them at this late stage. I understand the money was paid to them about the middle of 1939 and it is now 1941. The tenants have, therefore, quite naturally protested against having the matter reopened more than two years after everything had been settled and done with so far as they were concerned. I think this is right and feel that it would be unjust to join them now. But whether they ought to have been joined or not and if they ought to have been joined who is to blame for not joining them I find it very difficult to decide. Under Section 19, Land Acquisition Act, the Collector when making a reference to the civil Court is bound to state for the information of the Court, among other things, the names of the persons whom he has reason to think are interested in the land. He is also bound under Sub-section. (2) to attach to his statement a schedule giving particulars of the notices served upon the parties interested and the statements in writing made by them. He is also directed if the parties raise objection to the amount of compensation to state the grounds on which the amount was determined. These directions were not followed. But a map and the report was attached to the statement and in that the names of the persons interested in the land are disclosed.

(3.) DEALING now with the dispute in appeal. In the absence of the tenants, the matter will have to be dealt with as one between the malguzar and the Collector along the lines indicated by King, J., in the Allahabad Full Bench reported in Shiam Lal v. Collector of Agra and by the Division Bench in Rohan Lal v. The Collector of Etah . If the Collector has paid the malguzar too little he must make good the difference and the fact that he has possibly overpaid the tenants must be ignored so far as these proceedings are concerned. Whether the Collector has any remedy over against the tenants under proviso 3 to Section 31 or otherwise is a matter on which I express no opinion. The basis of compensation under Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, is the market value of the land. None of the other factors mentioned in the section apply here. This is also the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Atmaram v. Collector of Nagpur A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 92. To the market value is added 15 per cent for compulsory acquisition. This total sum is I take it intended to be distributed among the persons interested. Anyway such a direction is given to the Collector under Section 11(3) and I cannot see how any other rule can be applied when more than one person is interested in the land. The proper procedure in every case, therefore, is first to determine the market value of the land and then to apportion that among the various persons interested, having regard to the interests each possesses. This is the rule referred to in the Allahabad Full Bench decision in Shiam Lal v. Collector of Agra . I am of opinion that bearing in mind the criticism made on that page by Sulaiman C.J. this is the proper rule. The sum total of the rights and interests in the land is divided in such a case between the landlord and tenants and I cannot see how this sum total can be higher when the whole bundle of interests resides in only one person. This, however, is not the rule which has been followed here except that the market value appears to have been ascertained and that value as I have stated is not questioned before me.