1. This appeal relates to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, for the bungalow and compound (27.64 acres in extent) occupied by the Collector of Malabar. The Deputy. Collector awarded Rs. 36,302-7-9, but the Subordinate Judge awarded Rs. 35.234 and odd finding an arithmetical, mistake in the award of Rs. 1,457-14-0. The latter's award was really in other respects a slight enhancement. In both cases the valuation has been based on the net annual rental value of the property, the bungalow with furniture and compound having been leased for the' last 30 or 40 years at Rs. 150 per mensem.
2. The first objection taken in this appeal is, that the value of the land should have been ascertained separately and compensation awarded separately, but in the present case there is no evidence worthy of the name of the value of the land or of similar land in the vicinity, and it would be impossible for this Court to assess such value. Apart from this, we think that, when a building and its appurtenant land cannot be valued separately, and no attempt has been made to do so in these proceedings, the market-value must be determined on the net rental value and when that is done the building cannot be separated from the land, for it is impossible to say what proportion of the rent is fixed on the building and what on the land. This is in accordance with the view taken in Government of Bombay v. Karim Tar Mahomed 3 Ind. Cas. 273 and Premchand Burral v. Collector of Calcutta 1 Ind. Jur. 267. No doubt this Court in the case reported in Rajammal v. Headquatters Deputy Collector; Vellore 25 Ind. Cas. 393 did allow compensation for the land also, but that had been allowed by the lower Court and the question of the principle was not discussed. As regards the argument that rents have increased in Calicut and, therefore, a higher figure than Rs. 150 should be fixed, we need only say that there is no evidence that rents in the neighbourhood of the Collector's bungalow have gone up prior to the date of notification, nor is there any evidence of any offer of enhanced rent. The evidence of rise in other parts of the town is of no value here.
3. It is, then, further contended that the original award was based on claimant's tenure being jenmabhogam and not jenmam, as it was subsequently found to be. The Subordinate Judge has, however, increased the net rental value of Rs. 21-1-0, being the amount payable to Government for jenmabhogam. There is no evidence that jenmam tenure increases the market-value to any greater extent than this.
4. The argument that Government was prepared to pay Rs. 40,000 for purchase of the land by private sale is untenable, as any such agreement cannot determine the 'real and precise market-value of the land and can only be useful in furnishing an approximate figure. As the Rs. 40,000 appears to have included furniture said to have been worth from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000 the two figures practically tally.
5. It is also argued that in calculating the net rental only, one month's rental should be deducted for repairs, taxes, etc., and not two months' rental as adopted by the Subordinate Judge. The question of the amount to be deducted is one of fact and both the Deputy Collector and the Subordinate Judge have found that two months' rental is, the proper amount and we have no data whereby to correct the figure. Had the claimants produced the accounts kept by them the exact figure could have been ascertained, but they failed to do so, and we cannot say that the Subordinate Judge is wrong. In Rajammal v. Headquarters Deputy Collector; Vellore 25 Ind. Cas. 393 the learned Judges say. that the ordinary allowance is one month's rent, but give no reasons for the same and we may remark that 1/6th the annual rent is allowed to be deducted for purposes of income-tax. In these circumstances, we decline to interfere.
6. The last contention that the Subordinate Judge should not reduce the amount of compensation must, we think, prevail, for although, he might have justified the reduction on the ground that the furniture which was acquired by the Deputy Collector was ordered to be given hack to the claimant, he has not put it on that ground, but, solely on a mistake in calculation. We must, therefore, restore the figure of the Deputy Collector, i.e., Rs. 36,302-7-9. vide Gangadhara Sastri v. Deputy; Collector of Madras 14 Ind. Cas. 270 and Chdndu Lal Shah v. Collector of Bareilly 64 Ind. Cas. 624 .
7. The parties will pay and receive proportionate costs.