COLLECTOR Vs. P. C. JOGLEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment in this appeal will govern the disposal of the Cross-Appeal, First Appeal No. 72 of 1931 (P.C. Joglekar v. Collector of Nagpur.) Joglekar purchased a malik makbuza plot in mauza Dhantholi on 18th June 1924 for Rs. 31,000: the purchase included some structures and trees which existed on the plot. On 28th August 1924, two months later, the Government issued a notification under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, to the effect that it was proposed to acquire the land on behalf of the Municipal Committee, Nagpur. Joglekar purchased the land with the intention of laying it out in building plots and roads to give access to these plots and selling the plots. He had contracted to buy the land on 11th February 1924 and had prepared a plan (Ex. A-1) in April. He actually sold six of the plots, one before 28th August 1924, and the others before the notification was published under Section 6, Land Acquisition Act for a total sum of Rs. 15,423-12-0. Compensation has been given to the purchasers and there is no appeal before us with regard to that compensation. Joglekar was awarded Rs. 65,613-4-0 including 15 per cent for compulsory acquisition. A reference was made to the civil Court and the learned Additional District Judge directed that the Collector should pay Rs. 30,687-6-2 to Joglekar in addition to the amount already paid.

(2.) IN First Appeal No. 51 the Collector surges that the award of the Collector was proper and in Appeal No. 72 Joglekar urges that about Rs. 11/4 lakhs should be added to the amount found proper by the learned Additional District Judge. Mr. Bobde for the Collector urges that the principle adopted both by the Collector and the civil Court is incorrect. The award is based on an estimate of the amount which Joglekar would have received if he had been successful in selling all the land available for buildings in small plots to separate purchasers, less the amount which he would have expended in preparing roads and drains. Now Joglekar's scheme may be said to have a very successful beginning; but it was clearly possible that serious difficulty might be encountered before the scheme was complete. Nagjibhai (A. W. 14) bought another plot of about half the area in the same year: he divided this plot into building sites in the same way. He states that at the end of 1928 that one-third of the land was not sold and that the situation of 24,000 square feet, say two-fifths of the one-third, is such that no offers are made for it. It might have been proved that some portion of Joglekars land would have been considered by purchasers disadvantageous either for the reason applicable to these 24,000 square feet or for some other reason. The fact that a number of offers were made for particular plots does not show that similar offers will be made for every plot. Mr. Bhide, witness 1, for the Collector, states that Joglekar's land is likely to be inundated. We have seen the plot and think there is little danger of inundation from the Nag Nadi: but it is low-lying and water might collect in the rains even if Joglekar devoted considerable care and capital to the construction of drains. Next, in 1924 a possibility existed that before the bulk of the plots were sold, the demand for plots might diminish either because schemes similar to Joglekar's provided more attractive plots or because of severe trade depression. Again the conditions on which the plots were sold or agreed to be sold were such as might lead to dispute and litigation Joglekar's witnessess, e. g., Balkrishna (A. W. 3), states that it was understood that roads would be duly laid out and it is admitted before us that Joglekar was bound to provide roads and drains. The possibility of disputes arising regarding the sufficiency of roads and drains cannot be overlooked. Again, the eventual success of the scheme depended on the skill and care which Joglekar would devote in carrying it out during a number of years. Joglekar might fall ill or die: contractors for the roads and drains might prove dishonest.

(3.) ON this principle it seems clear that the sum which a prudent man in Joglekar's position would have accepted on 28th August should not 'have been exceeded. There is no reason to doubt that a prudent man would have accepted a sum much less than he hoped to get eventually by carrying out his schemes. Joglekar is a resident of Akola and, as A. W. 32, states that he had made large profits by a similar transaction in Akola: that, before purchasing the plot in dispute, he had not found out whether there was any land even better suited to his purpose in Nagpur; and that he had to borrow money to purchase the plot in dispute. If he had received a large sum on 28th August 1924, he might have carried out a similar plan either in Nagpur or in some other town on an even larger scale.