SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA Vs. BELCHAMBERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against an award of the Special Land Acquisition Judge of 24-Pergunnahs, made under Section 26 in modification of the award of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. The property, which is the subject- matter of the acquisition, is situated within the municipal limits of Calcutta, and has been acquired by the Government of Bengal, at the expense and for the benefit of the Corporation. At the time of the declaration under Section 6, it was admittedly bustee land, that is, land let out for the building of huts under an arrangement by which each tenant of the land is the owner of his hut. The Collector awarded Rs. 22,572 for the land and Rs. 5,168 for the huts; the latter amount has been accepted by the tenant?, and there is no dispute with regard to it. As regards the amount awarded for the land, however, the claimant refused to accept it, and upon his application the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of Act I of 1894. The learned Special Judge has found upon the evidence that the gross monthly income from the property is Rs. 350, that a deduction of 40 per cent. ought to be allowed for taxes, repairs, and other charges, that the net monthly income is Rs. 210, and that consequently, the market value of the property, at 20 years purchase of the net annual income, is Rs. 50,400. But the learned" Special Judge has held that Section 557, Clause (d) of the Calcutta Municipal Act is applicable to this case, and, on this basis, has found that the market value must be taken to be 25 times the annual value as entered in the assessment book of the Corporation, that is, Rs. 2,129 x 25=53,225. From this sum he has deducted Rs. 5,168, the value of the huts, and awarded to the respondent the balance, Rs. 48,057, together with the statutory allowance, as the value of the land. The Secretary of State has appealed against this award, and, on his behalf, the decision of the learned Special Judge has been assailed substantially on two grounds, namely, first, that Section 557, Clause (d) of the Calcutta Municipal Act has no application to this case, and the claimant is not entitled to any sum beyond what may be determined to be the market value without any reference to the presumption mentioned therein, and, secondly, that the determination of the market value is vitiated by two errors, inasmuch as (a) only 40 per cent. has been deducted from the gross annual income for taxes and repairs, whereas the allowance ought to have been at least 50 per cent., and (b) the property has been valued as a whole and the value of the land has been ascertained by taking the difference between the value of the entire property and the value of the huts, whereas the land ought to have been valued independently of the huts.

(2.) In our opinion, the first of these contentions ought to prevail, but the second cannot be sustained.

(3.) In support of his first contention, namely, that the provisions of Section 557, Clause (d) of the Calcutta Municipal Act have no application to this case, the learned Advocate-General has advanced three reasons, namely-- (1) that Section 557, Clause (d) ought to be interpreted as limited in its application strictly to cases where the Calcutta Municipal Authorities acquire land or buildings for themselves, and that it ought not to be extended to a case like the present where the acquisition is made for them by the Local Government; (2) that Section 557, Clause (d) applies only to lands other than bustee lands; and (3) that a re-assessment has not been made within the meaning of the proviso to the clause, after the commencement of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1899, for the district in which the land acquired is situated.