FINK Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By three different declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), dated respectively, the 18 June 1903, and 21 July 1903 and the 29 November 1903, the Local Government notified its intention to acquire three adjoining pieces of land in Ichapur, in the 24-Pergannahs, for the extension of the gunpowder factory, for the construction of a siding into the small arms factory and rolling mills, and for extension of the rolling mills. The proprietary right in the lands was Vested in the same persons, though the tenants were different. Some of the claimants, however, asserted rights adverse to the proprietors. For the purposes of the ascertainment of compensation the Collector under the Act of 1894 subdivided the lands into a larger number of plots, and both he and the learned Special Judge, dealing with the references made to him under Section 18 of the Act, have disposed of the claims to compensation under different awards. The result has been that we have before us, at the instance of the present representative of the same proprietors, a large number of appeals. There is not much to differentiate the cases from one another, but unnecessary costs had to he incurred on account of this multitude of oases and appeals. Other difficulties have also arisen, and the learned Counsel for the appellant had a just ground of complaint against the splitting up of lands for the ascertainment of compensation. The matter, however, is now past remedy, and a consolidation of claims would, at the present stage of the proceedings, be useless. The claimant had to pay, collectively, a heavier amount for court-fees on the different memoranda of appeals, and the costs in other respects were also heavier. We think it very desirable that the Local Government should evdeavour to avoid issuing different declarations for the acquisition of portions of the same tract of land when, as in the present case, the declarations follow each other in rapid succession. The Collector and the Judge should also try to consolidate claims to compensation so far as possible. The encouragement of piecemeal acquisition results in loss to all the parties concerned, not excluding the Government itself, and we may mention that in two sets of cases, which have recently come to us from Chittagong, the division of the lands under acquisition for the assessment of compensation has led to an extraordinary increase in the amount of court-fees payable on the memoranda of appeals.

(2.) The plots of land covered by these appeals lie on the left bank of the river Hooghly to the north of the gunpowder factory in Nawabgunge. They consist of, partly, land between the high and the low water lines of the river in the beginning of the rainy season, partly, land with the river frontage on one side and a road frontage on two other sides, and, partly, land which has the Eckford road on the north and the E.B.S. Railway lines and Ichapur railway station on the east. The land was homestead, garden and tank, but a small part appears to have been used for agricultural purposes. The valuation of homestead lands is generally higher than that of agricultural lands, and it is well known that gardens and tanks are adjuncts of lands occupied as homestead in this country. The different kinds of land must be differently valued, and the valuations must also vary according to advantages or disadvantages as regards the river, the proximity of roads and railway communications.

(3.) Both the Collector and the learned Special Judge have allowed, generally speaking, compensation for solid land at the rate of Rs. 250, for tank land at half that rate, i.e., at Rs. 125 and for paths at Rs. 68-8 per bigha, but land covered by the latest declaration has been valued at Rs. 350 with proportionate reductions for the tank lands and pathways. The Collector, in his references, gave few or no reasons for his estimates of value. The appellant claimed compensation at the all-round rate of Rs. 1,000 per bigha, but his counsel in this Court stated, having regard to the evidence on the record, that he would be satisfied with Rs. 750. We may say, at once, that the rates mentioned in the awards under appeal are, in our opinion, unduly low, but, at the same time, it is impossible for us to accept the all-round valuation and its basis as put before us for the appellant. The basis of the appellant's valuation consists of three sales, on the other side of the river Hooghly, of land sold for mill purposes. On the 7 October 1898, the Dunbar Mills Company purchased about 56 bighas of land, with maurusi mukarrari right only, for Rs. 50,000 and, on the 17 October 1898, they purchased another 41 bighas for Rs. 50,000. The first sale yields a rate per bigha of over Rs. 900, and the second of over Rs. 1,000. On the 3 November 1903 the Dalhousie Jute Company, purchased 75 bighas for Rs. 75,000. There were buildings on the land, and after deduction of their value, the rate would be about Rs. 750 per bigha. The land covered by the last sale is very nearly opposite to the land under acquisition, i.e., on the opposite bank of the river in a village called Chapdani. The contention, therefore, has been strongly pressed before us that the land covered by the appeal should be valued at the rate of at least Rs. 750. The argument of Mr. Arthur Caspersz for the appellant may be summed up thus. The three parcels of land covered by the three declarations, if taken together, would cover an area more than sufficient for a jute mill like the mills on the west bank of the river. On one side of the acquired area is a tidal navigable river, and on the other side there is the E.B.S. Railway with the Ichapur station close by, so that the means of bringing in and sending out goods may be considered excellent. The locality is within the commercial and manufacturing suburban area of the second greatest city in the British Empire, such commercial and manufacturing area extending further up the river on both sides. There was thus every probability, and not a mere possibility, of the lands acquired being purchased for mill purposes, as the demand for jute and its manufactured products is fast increasing. Any Company started for the purpose would gladly pay at Rs. 750 per bigha all round. Collector, therefore, should have valued the land at the rate of Rs. 750 per bigha. Such is the argument advanced before us, and we proceed to deal with it.