T KATHISSABAI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal relates to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, for the bungalow and compound (27.64 acres in extent) occupied by the Collector of Malabar. The Deputy. Collector awarded Rs. 36,302-7-9, but the Subordinate Judge awarded Rs. 35.234 and odd finding an arithmetical, mistake in the award of Rs. 1,457-14-0. The latter's award was really in other respects a slight enhancement. In both cases the valuation has been based on the net annual rental value of the property, the bungalow with furniture and compound having been leased for the last 30 or 40 years at Rs. 150 per mensem.

(2.) The first objection taken in this appeal is, that the value of the land should have been ascertained separately and compensation awarded separately, but in the present case there is no evidence worthy of the name of the value of the land or of similar land in the vicinity, and it would be impossible for this Court to assess such value. Apart from this, we think that, when a building and its appurtenant land cannot be valued separately, and no attempt has been made to do so in these proceedings, the market-value must be determined on the net rental value and when that is done the building cannot be separated from the land, for it is impossible to say what proportion of the rent is fixed on the building and what on the land. This is in accordance with the view taken in Government of Bombay V/s. Karim Tar Mahomed 3 Ind. Cas. 273 : 33 B. 325 : 10 Bom. L.R. 660 and Premchand Burral V/s. Collector of Calcutta 2 C. 103 : 1 Ind. Jur. 267 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 663. No doubt this Court in the case reported in Rajammal V/s. Headquatters Deputy Collector; Vellore 25 Ind. Cas. 393 did allow compensation for the land also, but that had been allowed by the lower Court and the question of the principle was not discussed. As regards the argument that rents have increased in Calicut and, therefore, a higher figure than Rs. 150 should be fixed, we need only say that there is no evidence that rents in the neighbourhood of the Collector's bungalow have gone up prior to the date of notification, nor is there any evidence of any offer of enhanced rent. The evidence of rise in other parts of the town is of no value here.

(3.) It is, then, further contended that the original award was based on claimant's tenure being jenmabhogam and not jenmam, as it was subsequently found to be. The Subordinate Judge has, however, increased the net rental value of Rs. 21-1-0, being the amount payable to Government for jenmabhogam. There is no evidence that jenmam tenure increases the market-value to any greater extent than this.