Judgement

Law. Rep. 52 Ind. App. 133 ( 1924- 1925)

Narsingh Das V. Secretary of State for India in C ouncil 228

Appeal from a decree of the Sigh Court (April 27, 1922) varying a decree of the District Judge of Lahore (April 15, 1919).

The appellant was the owner of a plot of land situate in Montgomery Street, Lahore, and measuring 4 kanals, 15 marlas, and 120 square feet. Upon proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for its acquisition for a public purpose—namely, the erection of a police post—he objected to the award of Rs. 10,986 compensation. The objection was referred to the District Judge under s. 19, sub-s. 2, of the Act, and he dismissed it.

Upon appeal to the High Court the compensation was increased to Rs.17,967. The method by which the learned judges (Shadi Lal C.J. and Harrison J.) arrived at the value appears from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The owner appealed to the Judicial Committee.

1924. Nov. 17. De Gruyther K.C. and Abdul Majid for the appellant.

Dunne K.C. and Wallach for the respondent.

Dec. 5. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD BUCKMASTER. The appellant is the owner of a plot of land having a frontage on the west side of Montgomery Road, Lahore. The Government of the Punjab, requiring this land for the purpose of a police post, duly notified the appellant on July 7, 1917, that the land was so required and directed the Collector of the District to take steps for its acquisition. The price not being agreed a reference was taken to determine the value and an award was consequently made allowing the appellant at the rate of Rs.2000 per kanal for the land. The appellant refused to accept this award and the case was accordingly referred to the District Judge of Lahore, who delivered judgment on April 15, 1919, affirming the award.

An appeal was thereupon laid to the High Court of Lahore, who varied the judgment of the District Judge in favour of the appellant and increased the allowance to about Rs.3000 per kanal. From this judgment the appellant has once more appealed to His Majesty in Council. The first comment to be made upon the appeal is that before 1921 such an appeal would have been incompetent, as was decided in Rangoon Botatoung Co. v. The Collector, Rangoon (( 1912) L. R. 39

I. A. 197.), but the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was amended in 1921 in the following way "Section 2.—Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), shall be renumbered 26 (1.), and to the said section the following subsection shall be added, namely (2.) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2, clause (2.), and section 2, clause (9.), respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, " and it is under this section that the present appeal is maintained.

The matter, therefore, must be considered and determined in the same manner as if it were a judgment from a decree in an ordinary suit, but it has been repeatedly laid down by the Board that in such cases they will not interfere with judgments of the Courts in India as to matters involving valuation of property and similar questions where knowledge of the circumstances and of the district may have an important bearing on the conclusion reached, unless there is something to show, not merely that, on the balance of evidence, it would be possible to reach a different conclusion, but that the judgment cannot be supported as it stands, either by reason of a wrong application of principle, or because some important point in the evidence has been overlooked or misapplied.

Law. Rep. 52 Ind. App. 133 ( 1924- 1925)

Narsingh Das V. Secretary of State for India in C ouncil 229

Now, the principle upon which valuation of property compulsorily acquired should be measured has been repeatedly laid down before by this Board and by the House of Lords. To use the words to be found in Fraser v. City of Fraserville ([ 1917]