SHIAM LAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by a zamindar and two tenants of a plot of land which has been acquired by Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The questions which arise in appeal are as to the market value of the property compensation for damage sustained and the method of distribution. The land as recorded in the revenue papers is an agricultural land, and the two tenants are its occupancy tenants. The first appellant, Shiam Lal, is the zamindar. The appellant however claimed that the land was a building site and had been let out for the purpose of keeping manure and fuel wood. The tenants filed an application before the Collector merely pointing out certain circumstances which should be taken into account in awarding compensation. They did not put forward any definite claim and did not mention any amount which should be fixed as compensation. The learned District Judge has accordingly held that they cannot be given any amount larger than what was awarded by the Collector. We are of opinion that in view of the provisions of Section 25, Land Acquisition Act, the view of the District Judge was right. The tenants cannot now be heard to say that the amount awarded to them is inadequate. The appeal of Amar Nath and Mt. Kaunsilla must therefore ba dismissed with costs. Shiam Lal claimed RS. 4,600 as the market value of the land. The Collector treated this land as an agricultural land and assessed compensation at the rato at 16 years purchase biisad on the net income. The total amount came to Rs. 78-15-0. The first point is whether the basis of calculating compensation is correct.

(2.) It appears that the land in question is a part of a bigger plot measuring 1 bigha and 4 biswas. 17 biswas out of this have now been acquired by Government. That area amounts to 2,342 square yards. The plot is situated within the.Municipal limits of the city of Agra and adjoins a metalled public road and is quite close to another metalled public road which crosses it. This portion is still called village Bhugipura, but is in a portion of the town which is well inhabited. The map shows that there are houses all along the road in this part of the town. Eajendra Pal Singh, patwari, who was produced by the respondent, has stated that the number of houses as well as the population in this part are increasing day by day. The inspection note recorded by the Collector does not show that he found this plot under cultivation at the time when he saw it although it does not also show that there was any heap of cow.dung cakes or fuel wood on the spot. The claimant led oral evidence to show that this plot had been let to tenants who were using it for such purposes, and that he was getting about Rs. 50 a year as rent. On the other hand, the rent from occupancy tenants after deducting Government revenue for this portion comes to Rs. 3-5-3.

(3.) The learned District Judge has ignored the fact that the rates at which the properties in this neighbourhood were sold under previous sala deeds were much higher. He has ignored them on the ground that those sale deeds had been executed by full owners who had the right tio sell the whole property for building purposes, and there were no tenancy rights in those lands. We think that he has orred in approaching the case from this standpoint. The first thing to do is to assess the market value of the land as it stood at the date of the publication of the notification : Section 23(1). For this purposo it is not necessary to take into account the conflicting rights of the various claimants inter se. This was the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Collector of Jalpaiguri V/s. Jal. paiguri Tea Co., Ltd. . The same view has been expressed in a recent case of this Court in Bohan Lal V/s. Collector of Eath . We agree with the view that the Court must first find out the market value of the land acquired irrespective of any consideration as to how it is held by the various persons interested in it. We think that this plot of land in the circumstances quoted above cannot be treated as a pure agricultural land, but must be regarded as building site with considerable potential value. The examples cited on behalf of the claimant are not quite conclusive. In 1924, 17,689 square yards were sold for a price, which would work out at Rs. 3-10-0 per square yard. In the same year over 84 square yards were sold at the rate of Rs. 2-15-4 and over 86 square yards at the rate of Rs. 2-15-0. But these were the sales of much smaller plots of land, and the prices obtained would not necessarily furnish a sufficient criteria for determining the rate for the plot in question. At the same time it is toibe borne in mind that when building sites are sold the areas may be small. The evidence produced by the claimant as regards the income derived for the stalls is very unsatisfactory, but there is reason to suppose that he has been getting some income. Having regard to all the evidence and the circumstances we have come to the conclusion that the price fixed by the Court below is too low, and that at the same time the price demanded by the claimant is too high. A fair assessment of the market value would be to fix it at the rate of Rs. 1 per square yard. There is some arbitrariness in this assessment, but in the absence of better evidence it is not possible to arrive at any other result. We accordingly hold that a fair market price of this land, having regard to all its potentialities, is Rs. 2,342. This is exclusive of the 15 per cent for compulsory acquisition.