BABU KAILASH CHANDRA JAIN Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These consolidated appeals are from three decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 27 November 1941, affirming three decrees of the Court of the Improvement Trust Tribunal, Allahabad, dated 27 April 1934, whereby, in respect of the compulsory acquisition of certain lands and buildings belonging to the appellant, he was awarded as compensation certain sums of money. The appellant contends that the sums awarded to him by the Tribunal were insufficient, in that they did not include any compensation for the acquisition of the following four pieces of land: (1) the garden of House No. 8, Mohalla Chak, Allahabad; (2) 504 square yards of parti land with enclosure wall known as No. 82, Mohalla Chah-Chand, Allahabad; (3) land with a long shed on one side of it known as No. 13, Mohalla Mahajani Tola, Allahabad; (4) parti land No. 22, Mohalla Mahajani Tola, Allahabad. The appellant further contends that the Tribunal, relying upon the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, in 50 ALL 470,1took an erroneous view as to the construction of S. 23 (3) (a), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 [I] of 1894) as amended by the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, 1919 (U. P. Act 8 [VIII] of 1919). The respondent, on the other hand, contends that if the facts are carefully examined it will be found that the appellant was awarded compensation in respect of each of these four pieces of land, and that in assessing such compensation the Tribunal did not apply any wrong principle. It is, therefore, necessary for their Lordships to examine in some detail the facts in regard to each of these four pieces of land. The question of compensation was first considered by the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the Officer"). His award in regard to the first piece of land is in the following terms:

(2.) ''This is an old pakka building with a decent flower garden attached to it and also a pakka well. It is assessed to municipal taxes on the yearly rental of Rs. 480. The net profit, after deducting the taxes, repairs, vacancies, etc., comes to Rs. 400. The current rate of profit on investments in buildings is six per cent. and at this rate the market value comes to 400 x 50/3 or Rs. 6650. According to the Land and Buildings method, its value works out to Rs. 9228. This, of course, does not take into account the enhanced value of the building and land on account of the garden. A fair monthly rental that could be got should be Rs. 60. Deducting the taxes, repairs, etc., the net profit comes to Rs. 600 per annum and its capitalized market value at the rate of six per cent. comes to Rs. 600 x 100/6 or Rs. 10,000. The building is not in the actual occupation of the owner but is lying vacant and the garden is used by the owner as a place of resort and I would allow fifteen per cent. for compulsory acquisition which comes to Rs. 1500. Therefore I would award Rs. 11,500."

(3.) It was suggested by counsel for the appellant that the officer had awarded nothing in respect of the garden, and he relied upon the sentence "This, of course, does not take into account the enhanced value of the building and land on account of the garden." Their Lordships cannot accept this suggestion. The sentence just quoted is merely a comment by the officer on the "Land and Buildings method," and it is plain from the remainder of the award that the officer in fact adopted a method of valuation which did take into account the garden. There can be no doubt that in assessing "a fair monthly rental" the officer was assessing a rental for the house and garden taken together. This is made clear by the fact that, having arrived at his valuation of Rs. 10,000, he allows an additional 15 per cent. for compulsory acquisition because "the garden is used by the owner as a place of resort." This is a reference to S. 23 (2) (c) of the Act of 1894 as amended by the Act of 1919 (set out below) and it would have been wholly illogical for the officer to add 15 per cent. if the garden had not been a portion of the property which he had already valued at Rs. 10,000.