GAJANAN VINAYAK Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order made by the Joint Judge of Thana in a land acquisition reference. The land to be acquired was notified for acquisition on the 24 January 1919. At page 108 will be found a plan showing the property coloured pink which was acquired out of a much larger area which belonged to the claimant Gajanan Vinayak. The Collector awarded Rs. 2-8-0 a square yard for all interests in the land. The joint Judge increased that to Rs. 3, and divided the amount between Gajanan Vinayak, the occupant, and the khot of Kaneri, in the proportion of 2 to 1. The claimant Gajanan contends that the land was worth Rs. 4 a square yard in January 1919, but that contention is based on sales dating from May, June a July, in 1919, several months after the land under reference was notified. It is a matter of common knowledge that as conditions began to improve after the Armistice had been signed, prices for land went up rapidly. But there is no evidence that they began to rise before May or June 1919. Therefore, the rates which were obtained in these months could not possibly bear any comparison with the rates which prevailed in January. It seems to us that the amount awarded by the Judge was ample, considering the evidence. The Judge, however, agreed with the Collector in awarding no compensation for 226 square yards on the northern boundary occupied by. a rough road which was used by the public and by the tenants of the adjoining land, holding that as a small portion was allotted for the purposes of the road on the northern boundary of the claimant stand, there was no necessity to award compensation for the 226 square yards. We think that decision was wrong. The land acquired was 1627 square yards in all, and on acquisition the ownership would pass from the claimant to Government. Although there may have been a public right of way over the 226 square yards, it did not follow that the claimant was entitled to, no compensation at all for his rights as a proprietor. At the same time, the fact that there was a road used by the public at one end of the claimant's land would depreciate that land, and we doubt very much whether we could possibly allow more than a few annas a square yard for these 226 square yards which were not reckoned in the Collector's award. We think the small amount that might be awarded can very well be set off against the very generous amount which has been awarded by the Joint Judge for the balance of the land so that there is no necessity to increase the total to be awarded for the whole 1627 yards.

(2.) Then the claimant asks us to assess damages for severance. That is a wrong word to use. Really this is a claim under Section 23(1)(4). It has been contended that by reason of the Government acquiring a part of the frontage of the land belonging to the claimant, the land behind the plot acquired would, by reason of such acquisition, be injuriously affected. That may be the case. The Judge has taken that into consideration in the amount that his has awarded, by adding 5 per cent, and we do not think there is any thing unfair in that excess.

(3.) Then the claimant asks us to award him Rs. 2,000 by reason of his premises being injuriously affected by the proximity of the Police lines which were going to be built on the land acquired. It may be, as held in Collector of Dinagepore V/s. Girja Nath Roy 25 C. 346 that the words in Section 23(1)(4) "at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land" cannot mean that the claimant can only prove that the property remaining with him is injuriously affected at the moment of the Collector's taking possession of the land. Such a construction would probably result in a claimant never getting anything under that clause. But it is very difficult to assess any possible damage which might be caused to the land still remaining with him, when the Government carry out the object which they have in view in acquiring his land; and it is difficult to say that because there will be some building occupied by the Police on that piece of land, a purchaser wishing to buy the rest of the claimant's land would consider that the Police lines was a draw- back, which would reduce its value. We doubt, considering the situation of this land, whether as a matter of fact the value of the claimant's remaining land would then in any way be reduced by the mere fact that the plot nearest to it was occupied by the Police.