Secretary of State vs Manmatha Nath Dey and Others

Ross, J.—These are three appeals by the Secretary of State against a decision of the learned District Judge of Patna in three references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, The only question which has been discussed in these appeals is the rate of compensation for the lands. In the compensation actually awarded there are other elements, namely compensation for buildings, trees and wells, but with these we are not concerned.

The learned Government Pleader contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the award of the District Judge. On behalf of the respondents there are cross-appeals and it is contended that the rate fixed by the District Judge is, on the evidence, too low.

In my opinion there is no merit in the appeals themselves. The only documentary evidence that was produced on behalf of the Secretary of State was two sale deeds in favour of Chuni Mahto which gave a rate of Rs. 200 a Cottah. Now the evidence of Chuni Mahto, who was examined on behalf of the Secretary of State, shows that the land was given to him by way of gift in consideration of his long service of his master from whom he purchased. He admitted that several persons were purchasers who were willing to pay Rs. 1,700, Rs. 1,800 or Rs. 2,000. Evidently therefore these sale deeds are no criterion of the true value of the lands. The respondents in their cross-appeals contended that more weight ought to have been given to Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.

Now in all these cases the prices were high, Rs. 1,400, Rs. 1,500 and even more per Cottah, but in every case there were special reasons for the purchases and in my opinion these must all be considered as fancy prices. It is true that in the case of the highest price of all (Exhibit 6) the vendor himself purchased at a high figure, but the circumstances in which he purchased have not been made a subject of investigation. The real argument on behalf of the respondents is that of the two documents which the learned District Judge has taken into consideration, namely, Exhibits 2 and 3, Exhibit 3 gives the better criterion of the two. Exhibit 2 is a sale-deed of 1918 by which the very land covered by case No. 50, that is appeal No. 243 was conveyed. The rate was Rs. 441 a Cottah. The evidence shows that the land was sold cheap because it was inauspicious. The other document (Exhibit 3) gives the rate at Rs. 600 a Cottah and the learned District Judge has taken the mean roughly between these two and has arrived at the figure of Rs. 500. Now Exhibit 3 is nearest in date to the acquisition itself and is therefore in my opinion the best criterion of the market value at the time of the acquisition. The land was acquired in March, 1920 and this sale deed was executed on the 28th of January, of that year. The land is directly opposite the land acquired in case No. 50 and I can see no reason why the rate shown in that deed, namely Rs. 600, should not be taken as the standard of these cases. It is the best evidence on the record.

In appeal No. 244 the respondent in his cross-appeal objects to the treatment of half of his land as frontage land and half as back land as being arbitrary. The total area is Only 1423 acres and for a small plot like this the distinction between frontage and back land does not appear to have much meaning. In my opinion there is no good ground for fixing two rates for this small plot and I would award compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 600 a Cottah.

In case No. 50, appeal No. 243, the respondent claims interest u/s 28. He is clearly entitled to interest at six per cent. per annum on the excess now awarded over the amount awarded by the Collector from the date on which the Collector took possession of land to the date of payment of such excess into Court.

The result is that the appeals are dismissed with costs and the cross-appeals are decreed to this extent that the rate of compensation for the land in all the cases is fixed at Rs. 600 a Cottah and in appeal No. 244 this rate is made uniform for the whole land acquired and in appeal No. 243 interest is awarded at six per cent. per annum as stated above.

Das, J.

I agree.