NIBAS CHANDRA MANNA Vs. BIPIN BEHARY BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order made by the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal about the apportionment of some compensation money. The necessary facts may be shortly stated as follows: The appellant was the tenant of a piece of land measuring 1 bigha 8agUas 12 chitaks. This land with other lands was acquired by the Improvement Trust and" the total amount of compensation payable was fixed by amicable agreement. The agreement further stated that, in raspect of this particular area of 1 bigha 8 cottas 12 chitaks, the compensation was to be Rs. 15,000. There were three sharers in the landlord's right and the appellant compromised his claim with the owners of two-thirds. The present dispute is between the appellant as tenant of this land and the owner of the remaining one-third share of the landlord's right.

(2.) The learned President has given the appellant, the tenant, the sum of Rs. 800 for his interest in the land; and it is contended on his behalf that that sum is entirely inadequate. The first claim advanced on his behalf goes so far as to demand the whole amount of Rs. 5,000 less the capitalized value of the annual rent of Rs. 7. The argument advanced on behalf of the claimant is this that, under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the Calcutta Improvement Trust, the market" value of the land should be assessed according to the disposition of the property at the time of the declaration. Now, this property at the time of the declaration was being used as agricultural land. It is said, therefore, that its valuation of Rs. 15,000 must have been arrived at on that basis. I have already mentioned that the amount of compensation was fixed on an agreement between the Collector and the landlord and I do not think that the claimant, the appellant, can now ask us to hold that the ground on which the parties to the compromise arrived at this sum, was that the value of the land as agricultural land was as much as Rs. 15,000. I have no doubt that the parties took into their consideration other circumstances and came to the conclusion that that was the value of the land, having regard to those circumstances.

(3.) The next argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that his status was that of a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent. The answer to that is given by the learned President. The landlord's predecessor bought the land in 1872 and from the terms of the kobala it appears that that land recently acquired was then in actual possession of the vendors. The only evidence which the appellant has to combat the effect of that conveyance is a series of dakhilas which undoubetedly relate to a period prior to 1872 but about which there is no evidence to show that they were for rents paid in respect of the land. Clearly there is no material on the record to warrant the suggestion that the tenant's right in the land was that of a raiyat at a fixed rate. He was an occupancy raiyat and nothing more.