SURESH CHANDRA BANERJI Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the Special Land Acquisition Judge on a reference made at the instance of the present appellant and another who was described as Claimant No. 1, named Mohini Mohan Banerji, against an award made by the Collector. The land acquired was 21 bighas odd and was used as a brick-field. It was let out to two brothers named Bull from October 1910 for ten years. The land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in 1914 when five years of the lease still remained to run. The rent payable by the Bull brothers to the two claimants was Rs. 1,800 per year. The interest of the claimants was that of dar- mokarraridars. The Collector awarded compensation on the basis of the rent reserved by the lease and allowed 20 years purchase-money to the claimants. The total amount was Rs. 30,836. In their application for reference to the Judge the two claimants wanted compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,18,000 odd. The learned Judge upheld the Collector's award on certain grounds which it is not necessary now to deal with Of the two claimants only the Claimant No. 2 has appealed before us and he has valued his appeal at Rs. 15,000 in his one-half share, that is, he alleges that the compensation to be awarded to the two claimants ought to have been Rs. 60,000 odd.

(2.) It has been contended before us that the Special Judge ought to have allowed compensation to the claimants with reference to one calculation something above Rs. 88,000 and according to a different calculation Rs, 77,000 odd. The contention with regard to the valuation according to the first method is that the rent ought to have been taken at the rate of Rs. 110 per bigha and the Collector ought to have awarded 20 years purchase value of that rent the amount being something over Rs. 46,000. To this it is contended that the value of the structures on the land should be added. The structures were a kiln and a building in which the office of the brick-makers was held. Rs. 3,000 is claimed for the kiln and Rs. 2,500 for the office building. The contention of the appellant further is that to this amount should be added damages for loss of earnings of the claimants as brick-makers and that is estimated at Rs. 37,000. This gives a total of Rs. 88,7Q0 and if this calculation had any basis to support it the claimants might have claimed a sum of about Rs. 58,000 in addition to what has been awarded by the Collector. The appellant's share on this calculation would have been namely Rs. 29,000. But he has abandoned about one-half of his legitimate claim on that basis according to the contention of his learned vakil.

(3.) The second method in which compensation is claimed is that the valuation should have been made on the basis of the profits made by the business of brick-making. It is said that the profits according to the evidence would have been Rs. 3 per thousand bricks and as 15 lakhs of bricks would have been made every year the profits would have been Rs. 4,500. Prom this a deduction was made of 25 per cent, for risk in the manufacture and so forth. The actual profit is claimed at Rs. 3,385. To this is added the rent of Rs. 1,800 which the proprietor would not have to pay if he had himself prepared bricks on his own land This gives a sum of Rs. 5,185. At 15 years purchase on this basis the valuation is said to be something over Rs. 77,000.