ROHAN LAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of proceedings taken for acquisition of land in the district of Etah. The area acquired is small and the learned District-Judge has found that the total market value of the land is Rs. 1,600. The zamindar of the land, which was in the possession of occupancy tenants, when it was acquired was the only contesting, party before the District Judge. The tenants were given a small amount of money as compensation and they did not choose to contest the Collector's award.

(2.) The learned District Judge, having, found that Rs. 1,600 was the market value of the acquired plot proceeded to find out what would be the fair share for the zamindar's interest. He found that the tenant paid a rent of Rs. 8-13 per annum to the landlord and the landlord paid Rs. 3 as the land revenue. The learned Judge, accordingly, found that Rs. 5-13 a year or roughly Rs. 6 was the zamindar's income from the property. The patwari stated before the learned Judge that a subtenant of the occupancy tenants was likely to pay a rent of between Rs. 20 and Rs. 25. The learned Judge then expressed the opinion that having regard to the situation of the plot and the possibility of growing tobacco on it, the tenant was likely to make Rs. 40 a year out of the land. Thus the learned Judge thought that the tenant could make 7 times the profit which the zamindar could make out of the land. Proceeding on this basis, the Judge thought that the zamindar's income from the property was 1/8 of the total income and that, therefore, he should assess the value of the zamindar's interest at 1/8 of the total value. He accordingly directed that a sum of Rs. 200 be paid to the appellant before us, the zamindar.

(3.) Although one of the grounds of appeal before us states that the market value of the land is not less than Rs. 2,400, the learned Counsel has accepted Rs. 1,600 as the right market value for the purposes of his appeal. His contention is that the learned Judge has awarded to his client a grossly inadequate amount as compensation. We have to see if this contention is substantially right.