Francis Maclean, C.J.
1. This case arises under the Land Acquisition Act, and the dispute is as to how the compensation money is to be apportioned between the zemindar and the patnidar whose rent is not liable to enhancement. It appears that under the terms of the patni pattah, if any portion of (he land comprised in the pattah is taken by Government under the Land Acquisition Act, still the patnidar is to go on paying the same rent to the zemindar. It appears that some 20 bighas of land were taken by Government. The patnidar used to pay rent for this land at the modest rate of 2 annas a bigha which would bring the total rent to something between Rs. 2 and Rs. 3 a year. This rent the zemindar still continues to get under the terms of the contract with the patnidar: and so, he has lost nothing. In cases like this, the Court has to find out, in making its apportionment, as was pointed out in the case of Dinendra Narain Boy v. Sitaram Mukerjee 30 C. 801 : 7 C.W.N. 810, what are the respective interests of the zemindar on the one hand and of the patnidar on the other. As I have pointed out, the zemindar here loses nothing by the fact of the land having been taken by Government, as the patnidar has still to go on paying the rent. The only thing of which he could be said to have been deprived is the chance of the patni lease coming to an end by sale or forfeiture. But there is no evidence as to the pecuniary value of such a chance and for the simplest of all reasons that it is difficult to appreciate what the monetary value would be. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge has divided the compensation money 'equally between the zemindar and the patnidar. That was, as I have already remarked, a somewhat rough and ready method of dealing with the matter which has not met with the approval of subsequent decisions. It seems to me in this matter that the zemindar has lost nothing: the property is really the property of the patnidar being held upon a permanent lease at a fixed rent not liable to enhancement and the only interest the landlord has now in it is the chance to which I have referred, the monetary value of which it is difficult to appreciate. I think, therefore, that the view of the District Judge is wrong and that the patnidar is entitled,' in the circumstances, to the whole compensation money.
2. The decrees of the lower Court must, therefore, be reversed and the patnidar, the appellant, be paid the whole compensation money.
3. The appellant is entitled to his costs in all the appeals. We assess the hearing fee in No. 259 at three gold mohurs and in each of the three other cases at one gold mohur.
4. I agree.