SOMASHEKHAR SWAMI Vs. BAPUSAHEB NARAYANRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings giving rise to these two appeals were initiated at the instance of the Karnatak Education Society for acquiring certain plots of land under the Land Acquisition Act in 1938 when notifications under the Act were duly issued. The property sought to be acquired consisted of five survey numbers, 3941, 3942, 8943, 8944 and 3945. In these appeals we are Concerned with three of them, namely 8942, 3943, and 3944. The compensation amount awarded for the acquisition of these three numbers is Rs. 20,645-9-2; and the question which arises in these proceedings is as to the method of apportionment of this amount between two claimants.

(2.) These three survey numbers originally formed part of old survey No. 958 which was watan property assigned to the Patil watandar, who is one of the two claimants in this case. In 1865 the said property was sold to the predecessor of the Swami for Rs. 575. The alienee continued in possession of this property until 1915 when an application was made by the watandar to the Collector inviting his attention to the fact that the watan property had gone out of the watandar's family by alienation, and requesting him to pass orders under Section 9 of the Watan Act. On March 14, 1915, the Collector virtually declared that the alienation in favour of the Swami was void, and in 1917 a further order was passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 directing the alienee to pay Rs. 60 to the watandar and permitting him to remain in possession. The alienee who was thus permitted to remain in possession of the land after the order of the Collector was passed under Section 9(2) of the Watan Act is the other claimant in the present proceedings. The learned Judge before whom these claims were made held that the alienee and the watandar were entitled to receive in the proportion of 25 to 75 as their respective shares in the compensation amount awarded. Both the parties feel aggrieved by this order, with the result that the alienee has filed First Appeal No. 404 of 1948 and the watandar has filed First Appeal No. 374 of 1944.

(3.) On behalf of the alienee Mr. Jahagirdar has contended that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the alienee was not entitled to the beneficial interest in this property. He has referred to the fact that on the evidence it has been proved that this land yields about Rs. 560, out of which Rs. 60 are paid to the watandar, and Rs. 500 represent the net income of the alienee. He has suggested that these two respective amounts may well be taken to represent the value of the interests of the respective parties in the land. He has conceded that something more may be added in order to ascertain the full value of the watandar's interest in the land, because under Section 9(2) of the Watan Act the watandar may persuade the Collector to increase the rent payable by the alienee. In support of his contention Mr. Jahagirdar has relied upon the decisions of the Calcutta High Court as well as those of the Nagpur and the Madras High Courts. Dealing with the case of a landlord and an occupancy tenant it was held by the Nagpur High Court that the landlord is entitled to one-fourth and the occupant is entitled to three-fourths (Sadasheorao V/s. The Collector, Nagpur [1942] Nag. 740). The Calcutta High Court in a similar case where the claims of the permanent tenant as against those of the landlord were in question held that the landlord and the tenant were entitled to receive their shares in the compensation amount in the proportion of six to ten [Shama Prosunno Bose Mozumdar V/s. Brakoda Sundari Dasi (1900) I.L.R. 28 Cal. 146, Dinendra Narain Roy V/s. Tituram Mukerjee (1908) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 801,] Similarly, the Madras High Court has held that the landlord would be entitled to receive 25 per cent whereas the tenant would be entitled to receive 75 per cent, for his share in the compensation amount [Natesa Ayyar V/s. Kaja Maruf Sahib (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 706 and Narayana V/s. Annapurnamma [1941] Mad. 753]. On the other hand, the Allahabad High Court have held that the landlord and tenant should recover in the proportion of ten to six [Shiam Lal V/s. Collector of Agra (1933) I.L.R. 55 All. 897, F.B.].