MANMATHA NATH MULLICK Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of land acquired in connection with what is known as the Central Avenue Scheme of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. The declaration under Section 6 was published on the 20 May, 1919, The claimant thereupon contended that the land should be valued at Rs. 8,000 a cottah. The Collector made an award at the rate of Rs. 5,500 a cottah. As the land had been acquired for the purposes of the Calcutta Improvement Trust, an appeal was preferred to the Tribunal. The result was that the Tribunal made an award at the rate of Rs. 6,000 a cottah. The claimant has appealed to this Court under Section 3 of the Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act, 1911, and has valued the relief at Rs. 20,000. It is consequently clear that the claimant does not adhere to his original estimate of Rs. 8,000 a cottah; he now claims in substance a little over Rs. 1,000 a cottah in excess of the rate allowed by the Tribunal. Under Section 3 the appeal can be maintained only on the grounds specified therein, namely, that- (i) the decision is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law; (ii) the decision has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law; (iii) there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure, which may possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits.

(2.) The judgment of the President of the Tribunal shows plainly that the case does involve a question of principle; for, it is stated that the matter in dispute relates to the determination of the exact principle upon which prospects and possibilities of future development should be taken into account in determining the compensation to be paid for property compulsorily acquired. The circumstances which render the decision of this question necessary may be briefly stated.

(3.) Towards the west of the land, now acquired under what is known as Scheme XIII, lies another parcel which is marked green on the map previously prepared in connection with Scheme VII. The precise date when the declaration in respect of the other plot w-is published under Section 6 cannot be ascertained from the record. But as that scheme was sanctioned by the Government on the 30 March, 1916, it has been assumed that the declaration was published shortly afterwards. The contention of the claimant is that in the determination of the value of the land now under consideration he is entitled to have the land acquired in 1916 treated as an open space towards the west, with the consequence that the value of his land would thereby be considerably increased. The Tribunal has overruled this contention and has held that Clause (5) of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act militates against the argument put forward on behalf of the claimant. That section provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the Court shall not take into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that Soheme VII and Scheme XIII, though nominally distinct, are so essentially interrelated that they may be treated in substance as one scheme and that under Section 24, Clause (5) the claimant is not entitled to have a higher value put upon his land by reason of the advantage which might have accrued owing to the action taken in respect of a neighbouring parcel acquired previously. In support of this view, reference is made in the judgment of the Tribunal to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs v. Charlesworth Pilling, & Co. [1901] 26 Bom. 1 (P.C.) and Fraser V/s. City of Fraserville [1917] A.C. 187 in my opinion the question which has been discussed in the judgment of the President of the Tribunal does not really require examination in view of the circumstances of this ease.