Skip to content


Burnomoyi Dast Vs. Bunwari Lal Chowdhry and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR14Cal749
AppellantBurnomoyi Dast
RespondentBunwari Lal Chowdhry and ors.
Cases ReferredRaikishory Dasi v. Neelcant Dey
Excerpt:
land acquisition act (x of 1870) - apportionment of compensation between zemindar and putnidar, principle of. - .....their rents. the apportionment between the zemindar and putnidar will depend partly on the sum paid as bonus for the putni, and the relation that it bcre to the probable value of the property, and partly on the amount of rent payable to the zemindar, and also the actual proceeds from the cultivating tenants or under-tenants. it may occasionally happen that the zemindar receives an extremely high bonus and is content with charging the property with the receipt of a very low rate of rent, or it may be that the bonus is almost nominal and the rent is excessively high, and the zemindar depends not on the bonus and the interest of the amount so paid and invested in some other way, but on the amount paid periodically as rent, and consequently as between parlies standing in these relations.....
Judgment:

1. The dispute in this case is between the zemindar and the putnidar for a sum of money due to the two parties as representing their rights to land taken under the Land Acquisition Act for public purposes. No ryots have appeared to make any claim. The District Judge, on the authority of the case of Godadhar Das v. Dhunput Singh 7 C. 585, has held that the compensation should be divided equally between the zemindar and the putnidar, and that no reason for departing from this rule has been shown in the present case. The putnidar appeals, and contends that, inasmuch as he has received no abatement of the amount of rent payable by him to the zemindar, he is entitled to the full amount awarded. The amount in this case is only Rs. 64-3-3 pie, but it is said that this is only a test suit and has been brought; up to this Court to determine the principle on which other and similar cases should be decided. We accept the authority quoted by the District Judge and also the authority of the case of Raikishory Dasi v. Neelcant Dey 20 W.R. 370, decided by the late Chief Justice Sir Richard Couch and Mr. Justice McDonell. It seems to us that no general principle can be laid down applicable to every case as between zemindar and putnidar. In the present case we must take it that the putnidar is the person to whom the ryots directly paid their rents. The apportionment between the zemindar and putnidar will depend partly on the sum paid as bonus for the putni, and the relation that it bcre to the probable value of the property, and partly on the amount of rent payable to the zemindar, and also the actual proceeds from the cultivating tenants or under-tenants. It may occasionally happen that the zemindar receives an extremely high bonus and is content with charging the property with the receipt of a very low rate of rent, or it may be that the bonus is almost nominal and the rent is excessively high, and the zemindar depends not on the bonus and the interest of the amount so paid and invested in some other way, but on the amount paid periodically as rent, and consequently as between parlies standing in these relations it is necessary to consider all these matters before any conclusion ran be arrived at as to their lights to any particular compensation. We therefore think that the case should be returned to the District Judge in order that the parties may be given an opportunity of adducing evidence on these points so that theCourt may deliver a proper decision having regard to all these circumstances. We make no order as to costs.


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