Skip to content


Rajah of Pittapur Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad818
AppellantRajah of Pittapur
RespondentRevenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Cases ReferredRajah of Pittapuram v. Revenue Divisional Officer
Excerpt:
- .....value of the land. the fact that the zemindar and the tenant will not combine and will not put the land to building use, does not stand in the way of taking that element into consideration. this is the only point decided in that case. where a land, which wag never put to agricultural purposes', is to be valued, on account of its possible use, for building purposes, the extra values, which it receives, should be proportionately distributed between the tenant and the zemindar, in proportion to their interests. this much must be conceded, in favour of the appellant. but it seems to us that there is no scope for, the application of that decision in the present case; for, under the land acquisition act, all that has to be ascertained is the market value of the land. whether it is agricultural.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act. But the Government are not now interested in the appeal. The dispute is as to the respective amounts, to which the Rajah of Pittapur and his tenants are entitled. The land acquired consists of 4 plots of dry jeroyati land, in the village of Chollangi of Pittapur Zamindary, which is under the cultivation of the ryots. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after referring to the rates quoted in some of the sale-deeds in the village and after remarking that the land is dry, found that the proper rate is Rs. 200 per acre. He I allowed the Zamindar the value of the Melwaram, which was determined, by deducting the proportionate peishcush from the rent and multiplying by twenty. The zamindar claimed half the amount of the whole compensation for his interest. The Rajah, not satisfied with the award of the Revenue Divisional Officer made a reference to the District Court. The District Judge affirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Ha found that the rent, which was realised by the Rajah, was Rs. 7 and capitalizing on this basis, he found that the amount which the Rajah is entitled to is Rs. 155-15-0 and awarded the rest to the tenants. The Rajah appeals.

2. The first point, which the learned vakil for the appellant, has taken is that the Rajah is entitled to all extra value, which is given to the lands, on the footing that that is useful for building purposes. He relies on Rajah of Pittapuram v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Cocanada (1919) 42 Mad. 644. He relies on the sentence, 'The difference between the market value and the value of the tenant's interest represents the landlord's interest.' All that was laid down in that case was that where a land is fit to be used for building purposes, that fact ought also to be considered in estimating the market value of the land. The fact that the Zemindar and the tenant will not combine and will not put the land to building use, does not stand in the way of taking that element into consideration. This is the only point decided in that case. Where a land, which wag never put to agricultural purposes', is to be valued, on account of its possible use, for building purposes, the extra values, which it receives, should be proportionately distributed between the tenant and the zemindar, in proportion to their interests. This much must be conceded, in favour of the appellant. But it seems to us that there is no scope for, the application of that decision in the present case; for, under the Land Acquisition Act, all that has to be ascertained is the market value of the land. Whether it is agricultural land, or land fit for building purposes, the value that has to be ascertained is its market value. In ascertaining its market value the fact that it may be possibly used, for building purposes has to be remembered. Where the land is situated in great towns and cities, such an element makes a substantial difference. But in small villages, in the ease of sites situated at a distance from the residential quarters in a village, it may make no difference. Whether the value is ascertained by capitalizing its agricultural income, or by regarding it as one fit for building purposes, where both the methods do not make any substantial difference, or to put it in other words, where there is no extra value to be given to it, if used for building purposes, there is no question of distribution of this extra value, between the Zamindar and the tenant. In the present case, the Revenue Divisional Officer has found, by using the sale deeds in the village, that the proper value of the land is Rs. 200 per acre. He also remarks that there is at present castor crop on the land. It is said that tobacco, chillies and other crops may be raised. It is clear that the land is saline soil and is being put to agricultural uses as dry land is.

3. The sale deeds in the village must have been made, on the footing that lands are agricultural lands. It might be possible that they might also be useful for building purposes. But all the same, it is clear that in petty villages they could not fetch much more, on that account. If that is so, the proportion between the Zamin-dar's and the tenant's interest remains, as if the valuation is made, on the footing that it is agricultural land. The Zamin-dar's rent is about 12 annas per acre. The rest of the benefit arising from the land goes to the tenants. The distribution now made by the Revenue Divisional Officer is, in accordance with this proposition.

4. The appeal is dismissed with costs of the tenants (respondents).


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //