RAJAH OF PITTAPURAM Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE think the correct rule in cases like this has been laid down by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Collector of Bolgaum v. Bhima Rao (1908) 10 Bom L.R. 657 viz the land to be acquired has to be valued in the first instance including all interests in it, and that the amount so ascertained has then to be apportioned among the parties interested according to their interests. This was followed by Batchelor, J. in Bonibay Improvement Trust v. Jalbhoy (1909) I.L.R. 33 Bom. 483. Similarly it was held in Calcutta in Collector of Dacca v. Hari Das Bysak (1912) 14 I.C. 163 that the proper way of dealing with lands like this is in the first instance to leave out of consideration the value of the occupancy rights, and to ascertain what would be the market value of the land if it were put to the most lucrative use, having regard to its condition, etc., the value of the occupancy rights of the tenants settled on the land being left to be ascertained afterwards. The fact that neither the landlord nor the tenant can utilize the land for building purposes without the concurrence of the other makes no difference. The difference between the market value and the value of the tenant s interest represent the landlord s interest. These authorities are not referred to in the judgment in Appeal Nos. 371 and 372 of 1916, to which the District Judge has referred. WE must set aside the award in so far as it relates to the appellant and remand the case for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result.