Tulain and Others vs Pt. Mata Din

Knox J.M., J.—This is a suit in connection with the acquisition of land for an improved farm. The Appellants have agreed to take the plots offered by the landlord in exchange. The only dispute concerns 5 trees planted on the field boundary some 25 or 30 years ago by the tenants. For these the tenants claim monetary compensation. The learned Collector has gone into the case in a careful order and has decided that the tenants have been unable to prove that they had written permission for planting the trees, that they held these trees for 25 or 30 years, and that there is nothing to show that the planting of the trees is an improvement within the meaning of the Act.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued that, if it was a question of ejectment, the proof of written permission would be essential. He contends that in Section 116 the word "improvement" is limited by the words which Tollow, namely "which he is entitled to make" but that in Section 40 (2) the improvement is left unqualified. I am afraid that this is special pleading. The closing words of Section 40 (2) are, "such compensation shall be in addition to the amount of compensation, if any, due for improvements. " I cannot see how it is possible to decide whether any compensation is due for improvements, except with reference to the definition of improvement and the sections dealing with a tenant''s right to make improvements. Now ''improvement'' is defined as a work which adds materially to the letting value of the holding, which is suitable to the holding and consistent with the purpose for which it was let. Now it is always very doubtful whether planting trees on a field boundary adds to the letting value of a holding or is suitable for the agricultural purposes for which it has been let. Ordinarily a'' reasonable landlord would not interfere with the discretion of a tenant in this matter and would not object to his planting a few trees, provided that his rent was paid regularly. But the Collector has definitely come to the conclusion that these particular trees do not add to the letting value of the holding. Consequently in my view his order is correct and I dismiss the appeal with costs and Rs. 10 pleaders'' fees.