LUXMAN CHANDRA MISTRY Vs. CHARU CHANDRA MITTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this appeal is whether the appellants had such rights in certain lands which have been acquired tinder the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as would entitle them to a part of the compensation money. The lands were acquired under a declaration dated 31 January 1927 and the appellants were claimants Nos. 4 and 5 in the land acquisition proceedings, the former being the tenants in respect of two land acquisition plots 8 and 9, plot 8 being a piece of land and plot 9 a doba. Claimant No. 5 was the tenant in respect of two other land acquisition plots 13 and 14, the former being a piece of land and the latter a tank. The Collector had divided the compensation money equally between the two claimants on the one side and their landlords, the Lakhrajdars, on the other. On a reference which arose out of an application made by the landlord and also out of an application which the appellants made, the learned Judge has awarded the whole of the compensation money to the Lakhrajdars. From this decision the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) It appears that the survey and settlement operations were going on in the locality about the time when the declaration was made and we are told that the actual survey had been made in or about the year 1925-1926. The Record of Rights that was prepared in connexion with these operations, we are told, was Finally published sometime after the declaration. In the Record of Rights, the claimants were entered as "rayats sthithiban" that is, settled-rayats; and one of the raiyats was described as having a korfa tenant under him. Against the name of the said korfa tenant, there was an entry that according to custom he had occupancy right. The land which this korfa tenant was occupying was described as sali land. The judgment of the learned Judge is not very happy and exception may justly be taken to certain remarks which are to be found in his judgment which create an impression that he was labouring under the idea that the claim which the appellant put forward was not a bona fide claim but that the object of their asserting that they had some rights in the land was simply to improve their status, they being by occupation dhobis, an occupation which they were not inclined to own or accept. The learned Judge says: The fact is that taking advantage of the settlement proceedings they are ambitious to become agriculturists.

(3.) This sort of remark does not appear to us to be just or proper. But the decision that he has arrived at on the question of the rights of the appellants to the land, in our opinion, is a decision which is justified upon the materials that are on the record. The learned Judge is right in saying that there is no evidence showing that as a matter of fact the appellants were on the land before they executed the two kabuliyats by which they purported to obtain for themselves tenancies in respect of the land acquired. These kabuliyats were executed in 1916 and 1918 respectively. The terms of the two kabuliyats are the same and if the character of the tenancy of the appellants has to be determined, the terms of the kabuliyats have got to be primarily looked into. The kabuliyat states that a certain annual rent was fixed in a lump and that rent was to be paid in four equal kists, and the tenant on agreeing to such rent was taking settlement of land as he was prepared to live on the land as a tenant was accepted by the lessor. Then it says: Without your permission I shall not be competent to cut down any trees that are or will grow on the land. You may out down any trees for your requirements.