NARAIN CHANDRA BORAL Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL
NARAIN CHANDRA BORAL
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL
Click here to view full judgement.
Maclean, C J -
(1.) This appeal must succeed. Speaking with all deference I feel some difficulty in appreciating the principle of the judgment of the lower Court. The learned Judge seems to me to have missed the real point in the case which shortly is this: The Secretary of State has under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act taken the requisite steps to acquire certain land including two tanks in the neighbourhood of Calcutta. The present appellant says that he is a yearly tenant at an annual rent of Rs. 125 of those tanks, and has been many years in possession of them as such yearly tenant. He is a fisherman by trade, he takes leases of tanks for the purpose of fishing, and makes, as he says, a substantial profit by his trade. He tells us in his petition how he makes a considerable profit by stocking the tanks with fish, catching the fish, and then selling them. Under these circumstances he says he is an annual tenant of these tanks and claims to be compensated by the Government for their compulsorily taking them. I think he is right. The Judge in the Court below is of opinion that he is entitled to nothing: I think the Judge is wrong. The appellant, as a yearly tenant of these tanks, is, for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act, in the same position as a yearly tenant of agricultural land, and equally as much entitled to compensation. This seems sufficiently clear from the definitions of "land" and "person interested" in the Act, coupled with Sub-section 4 of Section 23.
(2.) It would be a strange thing to say that, if instead of an annual tenancy it had been one for a term of years, the tenant was entitled to no compensation. I do not propose to say what, in this case, the amount of compensation ought to be, but the case must be remanded to the learned Judge in the Court below to ascertain, upon the evidence, what is the amount of compensation to be paid. The appellant is clearly entitled to something: the Collector took that view.
(3.) The appellant must have his costs of this appeal. Banerjee, J.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.