LAXMANRAO GOVINDRAO DESHMUKH Vs. JAGANNATH TUKARAM JIJKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, on 12th April 1989 on a reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. The facts are that Laxmanrao is a tenant of occupancy field No. 202/1G situate in Mouza Katol of which the respondent, Jagannath, is the malguzar. The entire field measures 2.56 acres and is assessed to rent of Rs. 10-8-0. 16 acre out that field was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the Katol Municipal Committee. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the total compensation at Rs. 367-3-0 out of which he awarded rupees 361-7-0 to the tenant, that is the appellant, and Rs. 5-12-0 to the landlord. The reference was made by the Collector at the instance of the respondent who is the proprietor of the mahal in which the field is situate. It. has been proyed that he is the landlord who is entitled to compensation; and that is no longer disputed. The only question is as to the apportionment of compensation between the landlord and tenant. The Collector awarded Rupees 5 to the respondent on the following calculation:

(2.) THE lower Court awarded Rs. 146-14-6 in place of Rs. 5-12-0. This appeal contests the enhanced compensation awarded by that Court. In cases of this character it is almost impossible to lay down any rigid rule of universal application. In vast majority of cases the apportionment is bound to appear arbitrary. The ratio of apportionment between the landlord and tenant may be different in different cases and would depend on the particular facts admitted or proved. In the present case there is no evidence one way or the other. Consequently the apportionment has to be made only on general considerations.

(3.) THUS , although the tenant may ostensibly get out of the land more profit than the landlord the actual value of the tenant right does not exceed that of the landlord who can hypothecate his land as security for his debts and can also sell the property outright. The landlord is also entitled to the minerals of the soil, whereas the tenant's rights are restricted to the surface of the soil. Balancing these considerations it was laid down that a fair estimate of the respective rights of the landlord and tenant would be 10 as for the landlord and 6 as to the occupancy tenant. The question of apportionment came for consideration again before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shiam Lal v. Collector of Agra . The learned Judges who constituted the Bench unanimously accepted the ratio of 10 to 6 as a sound rule to be followed in normal cases but liable to alteration on proof of special circumstances or considerations. The rights and liabilities of occupancy ten-ants in the Central Provinces are in no way different from those in the United Provinces and I see no objection to the adoption of the ratio evolved by the Allahabad High Court. That is what has been done by the lower Court. In fact the claim made by the landlord in this case came to only 40 per cent, of the total compensation; the lower Court was right in allowing it. The appeal is dismissed with costs.