Judgement

Appeal (No. 100 of 1930) from a decree of the High Court (May 3, 1928) varying a decree of the District Judge of Agra (January 16, 1925).

The decrees were made upon a reference to the Court by the Collector of Agra under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for determining the amount of compensation which should be paid to the appellant for his property acquired under the Act, together with certain other property.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. Dau Dayal there mentioned was the owner of a small part of the property acquired other than that belonging to the appellant.

1932. Jan. 21, 22. Dunne K.C. and Narasimham for the appellant.

De Gruyther K.C. and Jardine for the respondent.

Feb. 29. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN This appeal is brought from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad relating to the compensation payable to the appellant under or by virtue of the Land Acquisition Act (I. of 1894), which will be referred to as the Act.

The facts require to be stated in some detail for the proper appreciation of the points which are involved.

On July 9, 1923, the land acquisition officer of Agra (called hereafter "the officer") issued a general notice under the Act for the acquisition of a block of land in the city for the purposes of a new police station. The block measured just over 1 acre, and included certain land and houses belonging to the appellant, which were known by the name Katra Nandram, and which amounted in area to some 4109 square yards.

There were eighteen claimants to compensation in respect of the entire block of lands, including the appellant and one Dau Dayal. The appellants claim (as finally amended) was for Rs.3,34,598, made up of Rs.2,46,780 for the land (i.e., at the rate of Rs.60 per square yard) and Rs.87,818 for the buildings.

The officer considered the cases of the eighteen claimants and heard evidence, the hearing of which ended on December 23, 1923. As to the sixteen claimants, other than the appellant and Dau Dayal, an agreement was come to as to the amount of compensation payable to each for his interest; but for the purpose of acquiring a title under the Act the officer seems to have drawn up a formal award (dated December 31, 1923) relating to the compensation payable to those sixteen applicants.

On January 10, 1924, he made his award, dealing with the claims of the appellant and Dau Dayal. In it he states that agreement had since the hearing been reached with the other claimants, that an award statement regarding them had been drawn up and the amounts paid, and that the present award related to the cases of the appellant and Dau Dayal only. By that award he divided the appellants land into three zones, to which he attributed different figures, as follows (1.) 400 square yards of land with a street frontage of 120 feet he put at Rs.13 per square yard; (2.) 495 square yards, " spotted over with the houses of permanent tenure holders," he put at Rs.6 per square yard; and (3.) the remaining 3214 square yards, which consisted of the non-frontage land upon which there were no permanent tenure holders, he put at Rs.8 per square yard. These figures worked out at Rs.33,882 for land. For buildings he fixed a figure of Rs.34,537, making a total figure of Rs.68,419. To this sum had to be added the 15 per cent, provided for by s. 23, sub-s. 2, of the Act, so that the total compensation awarded by the officer to the appellant for his interest was Rs.78,682.

It would appear that, so far as concerned the 495 square yards, the sum to be paid to the appellant was reduced from Rs.8 per square yard (the full value of the non-frontage land) to Rs.6 per square yard owing to the interest therein of the permanent tenure holders.

Both the appellant and Dau Dayal were dissatisfied with the award and applied for a reference to the District Judge under s.18 of the Act. In the case of the appellant the District Judge affi