NAWAB BAHADUR OF MURSHIDABAD Vs. KUMAR DINENDRA MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule has been obtained on behalf of the Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and is directed against an order of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal dated 2nd October 1931 whereby he directed the investment of a sum of Rs. 9,88,000 out of the compensation money at present invested in Government bonds in the purchase of premises No. 8 Esplanade East belonging to Kumar Dinendra Mullick. Certain properties of the Nawab Bahadur in Calcutta known as Moidaputty properties had been acquired on behalf of the Calcutta Improvement Trust and the compensation money had been invested under Section 32 (1) (b), Land Acquisition Act in Government securities (1933-5% bonds) of the face value . of Rs. 14,68,200 producing an annual income of Rs. 73,589. The acquired properties were part of those held by the Nawab Bahadur under the Murshidabad Act (15 of 1891) and the schedule to that Act, whereby certain lands were settled for the maintenance and support of the Nawab Bahadur for the time being and for the maintenance of the honour and dignity of his station. It appears that in July 1930 an application on behalf of the Nawab Bahadur was made to the President of the Tribunal for the purchase out of the compensation money of zamindari property belonging to one Surendra Nath Tagore. Subsequently other persons came in and made offers of Calcutta houses. Government opposed the purchase of the Tagore properties, and on 31 March 1931 the Nawab Bahadur applied that the investment in Government securities should not be disturbed and on 30 April formally withdrew his application for purchase of the Tagore zamindari.

(2.) On 11 May the President of the Tribunal directed that the compensation money should be invested in the purchase of some suitable properties in Calcutta and ordered the Land Acquisition Collector to inquire into those which had not yet been inquired into. On 19 June 1931 the Government of Bengal assumed control of the Nawab Bahadur's estate, and Mr. K. C. De was made manager. He is a retired member of the I. C. S. and was recently the member in charge of the Board of Revenue of the Government of Bengal. On the reports of the Land Acquisition Collector, the matter came up on 24 August 1931 before the President when representations were made on behalf of the Nawab Bahadur that the properties in question were not suitable, that the Collector's valuation was too high and that in any event the investment in Government bonda should remain at least until the bonds matured in 1923 and full value could be obtained for them. The attitude adopted by the Nawab Bahadur was also supported on this occasion by Government and Mr. K. C. De's memorandum dated 11th August 1931 is very strong on the point. On 2 October, 1931 the President directed that premises No. 8 Esplanade Bast belonging to Kumar Dinendra Mullick should be purchased for Rs. 9,83,000.

(3.) Certain facts have been emphasized upon the merits which would possibly have been of great weight if this were a first appeal. For instance, the Nawab Bahadur and the Government who between them are the persons really interested now present a united front in saying that this is not the time to invest in house property in Calcutta and that in any event the matter should be postponed till the bonds mature. They stand at present at a discount and a sale now would result in a loss of many thousands of rupees. It is said further that the President has only taken into account taxes and repairs in his estimate of the income from the premises, has made no allowance for discount on the bonds, stamp duty on the conveyance, the income-tax on the property, rental as compared with the bonds (which are income-tax free) or the fall in rental values. On a proper comparison of the investments it is further said that the income from the bonds is a clear Rs. 6,000 a year better than that from the property proposed and though the Advocate-General argues that the statute does not make the amount of income the deciding factor its importance cannot be doubted particularly where it is a question of maintaining the honour and dignity of the station of the Nawab Bahadur. Assuming that the President has not considered all these facts, important though they be it cannot be said that they would authorize us to interfere in revision.