Statutory compensation under Sec.23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not payable on damages awarded under clauses thirdly and fourthly of Sec.23 (1) of the Act, which deal with damage to other land and property of the awardee.

1. This appeal by the State of Bihar is directed against an award in a land acquisition case. The Awardee has also filed a cross-objection.

2. Two land acquisition reference cases were disposed of by the Court below by a common judgment which is under appeal, but the appeal relates only to the subject-matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 117 of 1961. The area under acquisition was 9.5 decimals in Plot. Nos. 204, 211, 212, 214 and 220 in village Sirsia in the district of Saran for construction of a bandh known as Sondhi Bandh. The notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on the 7th December, 1955, and the publication under Sec. 6 of the Act was made on the 15th July, 1959.

3. The claim of the Awardee was at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00 per katha for the land, Rs. 60,000.00 for the building standing thereon and Rs. 2,000.00 for a well. The Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 101.65 p. for the land at the rate of Rs. 1070.00 per acre, Rs. 1860.00 for the building and nothing for the well. He also awarded solatium at the rate of 15 per cent of the said compensation. The learned Land Acquisition Judge has raised the compensation of the land to Rs. 166.25 P. at the rate of Rs. 1750.00 per acre. He has also raised the compensation for the building to Rs. 18,000/-. He has agreed with the Collector that the Awardee was not entitled to anything for the well inasmuch as it stands on Plot No. 216 which is not under acquisition. He has further ordered for solatium at the rate of 15 per cent of the compensation and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 6 per cent on the amount in excess of the compensation allowed by the Collector.

4. Mr. Shushil Kumar Jha, Government Pleader No. 1 appearing for the State, has pressed the appeal only in respect of the compensation for the building. He has submitted that the entire building was not under acquisition. Even according to the Awardee, only less than half of the building was under acquisition and the court below has erred in reducing only 25 per cent of the valuation fixed by the Pleader Commissioner. On the other hand, Mr. Gupteshwar Prasad, appearing for the respondent, has contended that on account of the acquisition, the entire building has been rendered useless and, therefore, the court below has erred in reducing the compensation than what was fixed by the Pleader Commissioner in his report. In our opinion, taking everything into consideration, the amount of Rs. 18,000.00 as compensation for the building appears to be just and proper, but not for the reasons given by the Court below. The main building stands on four plots, namely, Plot Nos. 211, 212, 214 and 215. The Awardee who has examined himself as A. W. 8 has admitted that the building covers about 1 1/2 katha of Plot No. 215 which is not under acquisition. He has further said that while the value of the entire building is Rs. 65,000/-, the value of the portion of it which is under acquisition is only Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, according to his own case, the value of the acquired portion of the building should be 7:13 of the value of the entire building. The Commissioner has fixed the valuation of the entire building at Rupees 36,176.12 P. On that basis, the value of the portion of the building under acquisition will be roughly about Rs. 15,000/-. The Court below has deducted 10 per cent of the valuation on the ground that the materials used in the building cannot be of the same standard as of the materials supposed to be used in Government buildings. Mr. Gupteshwar Prasad has criticised this deduction, but we think that the standards of materials used in villages are not the same as those used in buildings in towns. Therefore, if 10 per cent of Rs. 15,000.00 is deducted, the balance will come to Rs. 13,500/-. The house was admittedly constructed about 15 years ago. Some deduction has also, therefore, to be made on account of depreciation in its value. We propose