SECURITY OF STATE Vs. SITAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no substance either in the appeal or in the cross-appeal. The appeal is by the Secretary of State and it is contended that a question of principle arises. The Collector had given 16 years purchase to the claimant which was increased by the District Judge in the Court below to 20 years. The principle is said to arise by reason of a judgment of this Court delivered by Ross, J. on 27 November 1930 from which it will be seen that the land contiguous to the land in question before us was acquired at compensation at the rate of 16 years purchase. The learned Judge however in that case quite clearly points out towards the end of his judgment that the 16 years purchase is based on a rent which strictly speaking was much in excess of the real annual value of the property and that therefore although stated to be 16 years purchase, it amounts in substance to 20 years purchase. Even supposing the learned Judge had not so decided, it would be impossible for this Court from a judgment of this Court in another case to hold as a matter of law or principle that 16 years purchase was to be given in all these cases. The matter depends entirely upon the circumstances of the case, and the District Judge for the reasons he has stated has come to the conclusion that 20 years purchase is the proper rate to give in this case.

(2.) As regards the cross appeal the contention of the claimant was that compensation in this case was given on the basis of a contract made between him and the Government which was evidenced by a letter written by the claimant to the Collector on 27 March 1931. The letter as I say was written to the Collector but stated the substance of the agreement between the parties, and that is not denied by the appellant. The clause in the letter which is material for the purpose of this decision is to this effect: He will get the price of the holding calculated on a rental basis of Rs. 33 per month plus the statutory compensation of 15 per cent.

(3.) It is contended that those words meant Rs. 33 per month net without the usual deductions for cess and ground rent. That argument in my opinion cannot be sustained. The words are clear "on a rental basis of Rs. 33 per month" and it was therefore a question of what was the net value to the claimant of the property in question. That net value could be arrived at only by the deductions of the two items to which I have referred. There is one other matter with regard to which the claimant does appear to be entitled to relief. The Government took possession on 13 April 1931 and served a notice upon the claimant on 11 November 1931 to the effect that he should receive payment.