Tudball and Rafiq, JJ.
1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act. Government acquired an area of four acres, twenty poles, situated in the village of Manakpur Naroli temporarily for a term of two years under the section for the purpose of quarrying kankar. The laud was culturable land in the hands of tenants. Compensation was offered to the tenants for the period of their ouster and a sum of Rs. 105-6-0 was offered as compensation to the zamindar and it was explained to him that on the expiry of the two years term, he would be entitled to further compensation for any damage done to the land, under Section 36, Clause (2), of the Land Acquisition Act. He objected to the amount offered to him and he put forward his plea in this way that by reason of the kankar being dug, the surface of the land would be lowered, earth would have to be brought from' elsewhere to raise if and make it fit for cultivation. This being so he was entitled to two sorts of compensation, (1) to two years rent for the period of occupation and (2) to compensation at the rate of Rs. 18 per bigha kham for levelling the ground and for bringing earth from other plots to make the ground fit for cultivation. This he put forward on the 24th of October, before the Collector. The Collector refused to grant him any sum more than the amount offered and ho applied for a reference to the District Judge. Before the District Judge he again claimed the same compensation and asked for an order awarding compensation for levelling the ground after the two years. The learned District Judge awarded to him the sum of Rs. 198-8-0. He arrived at this figure by calculating approximately the amount of kankar which would probably be dug out of the area occupied and valued it at Rs. 7-8-0 per bigha. The total area being 26 bighas 19 biswas he awarded Rs. 198-8-0. Government has appealed and the respondent has also filed objections claiming that he is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 18-0-0 per bigha as he has all along claimed. In our opinion the method adopted by the learned District Judge is absolutely wrong. There was no question of the valuation of the kankar fit all. The respondent put forward no claim thereto. Ho had asked merely for two years rent plus compensation at the rate of Rs. 18-0-0 per bigha to cover the cost of re-levelling the land and making it fit for cultivation. We have to point out that the compensation offered by the Collector amounted to four times the annual rent paid by the tenants of the land. It is quite clear that the respondent is also entitled to compensation under Section 36, Clause (2), of the Act, i.e., compensation which is to cover the cost of re-levelling the land and making it fit for cultivation. But an examination of the section will show that this j amount of compensation has to be calculated at the expiry of the period for which the land has been temporarily acquired. The reason of this is obvious, for it is impossible to say in advance what damage, will be caused to the land and what it will cost to make that damage good. The respondent has really in his petition asked for the payment of that compensation in advance. But he is not entitled to this in 'this' proceeding. His application in respect thereto is premature. He only asked for two years' rent. The Collector awarded him four years' rent. In our opinion he has been liberally treated. We therefore allow the appeal. We set aside the award of the District Judge. We award to the respondent Rs. 105-6-0 as offered to him by the Collector in the beginning. It will still be open to him on the expiry of the period for which the land has been acquired to apply for the compensation mentioned in Section 36, Clause (2) which he has claimed at Rs. 18-0-0 per bigha and in respect to which we express no opinion in the present proceeding. The objections are disallowed with costs and the appellant will have his costs in both courts.