COLLECTOR OF MONGHYR Vs. BHEKDHARI MANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by the Collector of Monghyr from a judgment in a reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. It appears that proceedings were commenced for the compulsory acquisition of 9.195 acres of land in village Nayagaon, Pargana Monghyr, which was required for remodelling the railway station yard of Jamalpur. The area of land is equivalent to 27 bighas 16 kathas 6 dhurs. The Collector under Section 11 of the Act awarded to the tenants compensation for the lands amounting to Rs. 21,414-1-0 and Rs. 200 for a well together with additional compensation amounting to Rs. 3242-1-0 at the statutory rate of 15 per cent. The total compensation awarded, therefore, to the tenants amounted to Rs. 24,856-2-0. The landlord was also awarded compensation; but he has accepted the award, and we are not concerned with the amount granted to him.

(2.) The tenants objected to the award on the ground that the lands were in close proximity to Jamalpur railway station, and that being so, the tenants contended that the land was valuable building land and that the compensation awarded was wholly inadequate. They also objected to the amount of compensation awarded for the well, namely Rs. 200. The Collector in due course made a reference to the learned District Judge, and the matter was heard and determined by him. The learned District Judge was of opinion that the compensation awarded by the Collector to the tenants was not sufficient, and he increased the compensation for the land to a sum of Rs. 28,862-6-8 and for the well to a sum of Rupees 350, making a total of Rs. 29,212-6-8. This sum together with 15 per cent., which is allowed for compulsory acquisition, came to Rs. 33,594-4-0. The District Judge ordered that a sum of Rs. 8738-2-0, which is the difference between these two sums, should be paid to the tenants as additional compensation.

(3.) The Collector of Monghyr preferred the present appeal which has been argued by the learned Advocate-General. He has contended that the amount awarded by the Collector was sufficient and that the learned District Judge was wrong in valuing this land as building land. He has pointed out that the land in question is occupancy land and that the tenants had no right to sell it as building land without the sanction of the landlord. It appears that the Collector valued this land by taking the average sale price of a number of kobalas relating to occupancy lands.