Judgement

Appeal (No. 119 of 1927) from a decree of the High Court (February 24, 1926) varying an award by the Assistant Judge at Thana on a reference made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 18.

The land in question in the appeal was held by the appellant, the Khot of Kanjur, under a kowl or lease from the Government. The main question upon the appeal was whether in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the appellant was entitled to compensation in respect of buildings erected by the Government upon the land before notifying a declaration under s. 6 of the Act.

The circumstances appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Assistant Judge increased the award as to the land but held that the value of the buildings should not be included ; he awarded however interest upon the value of the land as compensation for the Governments occupation before the notification.

Both parties having appealed to the High Court, the learned judges (Macleod C.J. and Coyajee J.), by a judgment delivered by the Chief Justice, restored the original award as to the value of the land, and in other respects affirmed the decision.

1929. Jan. 5, 7, 8. Upjohn K.C. and E. B. Raikes for the appellant.

Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the respondent.

[Reference was made to Khoderam Sherma v. Trilochun ((1801) 1 Sel. R. 46.) ; Gobind Row Poramanick v. Gooroo Churn Dutt (( 1865) 3 S. W. R. 71.); Thakoor Chunder Poramanick v. Ramdhone Bhuttacharjee (( 1866) 6 S. W. R. 228.); Narayan v. Bholagir (( 1869) 6 Bom. H. C. (A.

C. J.) 80.); Shaik Husain v. Govardhandas (( 1895) I. L. R. 20 B. 1.); Premji v. Haji Cassum (( 1895)

I. L. R. 20 B. 298.); Secretary of State for India v. Charles-worth (( 1900) L. R. 28 I. A. 121.); Angammal v. Aslami (( 1913) I. L. R. 38 M. 710.); Narayan Das Khettry v. Jatindra Nath Boy Chowdhury (( 1927) L. R. 54 I. A. 218.)

; Land Acquisition Act (I. of 1894), ss. 3 (a), 6, 17, 23.]

April 16. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD CARSON. This is an appeal against a decree made on February 24, 1926, by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, varying an award dated July 28, 1924, by the Assistant Judge at Thana on a reference made under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The land in question is part of the village of Kanjur, and the area in dispute in this appeal is stated to be about 26¾ acres. Some of the lands were in the possession of sutidars who had rights of permanent occupancy in their rice fields. The first question which was argued before this Board on the present appeal was the claim of the appellants that certain buildings which had been erected by the Government on the land at the date of the Governments declaration of November 4, 1920, under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had become and were the appellants property, and that he should be allowed the value of the land in the state in which it then was ; that is to say, with the buildings on it. The wav that question has arisen is as follows —

It appears that in 1919 the Government resolved to acquire the land in question and other land under the said Act, and by arrangement with certain of the sutidars they took possession of the land, including a portion which was in the occupation and the property of the appellant. Upon the land, including a portion in the possession of the appellant, they proceeded to erect certain buildings without the necessary notification, which was not served until November 4, 1920. On that date the Government notified, under the Land Acquisition Act, s. 6, a declaration that 52 acres more particularly described therein, situated in the said village and including the land in question in this appeal, were needed for a public purpose, and the collector took order for the acquisition thereof. It is to be observed that the Government were in a position by law at any moment to regularize their position by such a notification—a fact which becomes material when it has to be considered what the na