SADASHIV RAO DANDIGE Vs. COLLECTOR, NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Mr. Joglekar held a malik makbuza plot in mahal No. 1 of Mauza Dhantoli and paid Rs. 87 revenue for the plot. Sections 81, 82 and 95, C. P. Land Revenue Act, make it quite clear that the malik makbuza accepts an assessment of land revenue; but as the proprietor of the plot and the malguzar of the village in which the plot is situated have no rights therein, the land revenue which he has to pay is under the provisions of Section 123 of the Act paid through the lambardar. The mahal has been leased in perpetuity, the present lessee being Mr. Dandige. Mr. Joglekar hag been paying the revenue to Mr. Dandige presumably because this is agreed between the proprietor, the lessee and the malik makbuza. The lessee paid to the proprietor less than Rs. 87. I understand that this is because a considerable part of the mahal had previously been acquired by Government. The proprietor of the mahal, Mr. Gujar, is a muafidar and paid to Government only Rs. 35. It must be considered that the remainder of the revenue has been assigned to Mr. Gujar. Mr. Joglekar's plot has now been acquired by Government. Mr. Joglekar has received compensation and has ceased to pay land revenue. Had it not been that Mr. Gujar was a muafidar, his revenue would have been reduced by Rs. 87 less any amount he had been retaining as commission. Rule 40 of the instructions under the Land Acquisition Act makes this clear.

(2.) THE landlord is entitled to no compensation on account of the acquisition of the malik makbuza land as he is now interested as landlord therein, his commission being merely payment for the trouble of collecting the land revenue. As Mr. Gujar paid only Rs. 35 the stoppage of the payment of Rs. 87 might have been made good to him by giving him a claim to receive a sum yearly from Government or by paying him a sum equivalent to the capital value of this payment. It does not appear then that there was any necessity for the Land Acquisition Officer to award any sum to Mr. Gujar who had no rights in the land. The payment of land revenue through Mr. Gujar did not furnish any additional guarantee that Government would carry out its obligations. The Land Acquisition Officer however did deal with the matter. The revenue paid by Mr. Gujar had been reduced by the Deputy Commissioner by a sum of Rs. 14-12-0 : compensation equal to the capitalized value of Rs. 87-14-12 and Rs. 72-4-0 has been paid. This is undoubtedly favourable to Mr. Gujar, as the commission which he received for collection of the malik makbuza should be deducted. The compensation has been paid to the perpetual lessee on the assumption that the lease money paid by him will be reduced by Rs. 8-8-0. Mr. Dandige under the impression that if he took the compensation money he would have to pay the existing lease money less Rs. 8-8-0, has appealed.

(3.) THE appellant must pay the costs of Government calculated on 15 per cent of Rs. 1,445 : other costs will be borne as incurred. The counsel for parties have been shown this draft and agree.