Skip to content


T.W. Higgins Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Through the Collector of Chittagong - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.221
AppellantT.W. Higgins
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council Through the Collector of Chittagong
Excerpt:
land acquisition act (i of 1894), sections 18 and 23 - compensation payable under act, valuation of--collector, valuation by, whether can he displaced. - fletcher, j.1. this is an appeal from a decision of the learned district judge of chittagong, dated the 21st of february 1916.2. the proceedings before the learned district judge originated in a reference under the provisions of the land acquisition act in reference to certain land which has been compulsorily acquired for the forest department for the purpose of making a road.3. the learned judge slightly increased the amount awarded by the collector. against that decision the appellant has appealed to this court.4. now in a case like the present the compensation payable to the appellant cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy and the court has to see whether the evidence adduced displaces the amount awarded by the collector, which was slightly increased by the learned district.....
Judgment:

Fletcher, J.

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 21st of February 1916.

2. The proceedings before the learned District Judge originated in a reference under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in reference to certain land which has been compulsorily acquired for the Forest Department for the purpose of making a road.

3. The learned Judge slightly increased the amount awarded by the Collector. Against that decision the appellant has appealed to this Court.

4. Now in a case like the present the compensation payable to the appellant cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy and the Court has to see whether the evidence adduced displaces the amount awarded by the Collector, which was slightly increased by the learned District Judge. The appellant at the hearing before the learned District Judge in support of his case examined himself a witness named Atar Ali and two other witnesses. On the side of the respondent, 3 witnesses were examined. The learned District Judge in the main declined to act on the evidence of the appellant and his witness Atar Ali.

5. The only question in this appeal is, whether we should differ from the learned District Judge in this respect. A careful examination of the evidence has convinced me that the evidence of the appellant and Atar Ali is so exaggerated and reckless that no reliance can be placed thereon.

6. In that view no ground has been shown which would entitle us to disturb the judgment of the learned District Judge.

7. The present appeal accordingly fails and must be dismissed with, costs. Hearing fee five gold mohurs.

Shamsul Huda, J.

8. In this case though I am not satisfied that the appellant has got the full value of the land that has been acquired, 1 feel constrained to agree with the learned Judge that the appellant has an exaggerated idea of the value of his own property, so that it is not quite safe to act upon his evidence. The witnesses examined by him do not materially improve his case. This being so, there is no basis upon which I could raise the award by any definite figure. I, therefore, agree with my learned brother in dismissing the appeal with costs.


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