Hugh Walmsley, J.
1. This appeal is directed' against an order made by the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal about the apportionment of some compensation money. The necessary facts may be shortly stated as follows: The appellant was the tenant of a piece of land measuring 1 bigha 8agUas 12 chitaks. This land with other lands was acquired by the Improvement Trust and' the total amount of compensation payable was fixed by amicable agreement. The agreement further stated that, in raspect of this particular area of 1 bigha 8 cottas 12 chitaks, the compensation was to be Rs. 15,000. There were three sharers in the landlord's right and the appellant compromised his claim with the owners of two-thirds. The present dispute is between the appellant as tenant of this land and the owner of the remaining one-third share of the landlord's right.
2. The learned President has given the appellant, the tenant, the sum of Rs. 800 for his interest in the land; and it is contended on his behalf that that sum is entirely inadequate. The first claim advanced on his behalf goes so far as to demand the whole amount of Rs. 5,000 less the capitalized value of the annual rent of Rs. 7. The argument advanced on behalf of the claimant is this that, under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the Calcutta Improvement Trust, the market' value of the land should be assessed according to the disposition of the property at the time of the declaration. Now, this property at the time of the declaration was being used as agricultural land. It is said, therefore, that its valuation of Rs. 15,000 must have been arrived at on that basis. I have already mentioned that the amount of compensation was fixed on an agreement between the Collector and the landlord and I do not think that the claimant, the appellant, can now ask us to hold that the ground on which the parties to the compromise arrived at this sum, was that the value of the land as agricultural land was as much as Rs. 15,000. I have no doubt that the parties took into their consideration other circumstances and came to the conclusion that that was the value of the land, having regard to those circumstances.
3. The next argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that his status was that of a raiyat at a fixed rate of rent. The answer to that is given by the learned President. The landlord's predecessor bought the land in 1872 and from the terms of the kobala it appears that that land recently acquired was then in actual possession of the vendors. The only evidence which the appellant has to combat the effect of that conveyance is a series of dakhilas which undoubetedly relate to a period prior to 1872 but about which there is no evidence to show that they were for rents paid in respect of the land. Clearly there is no material on the record to warrant the suggestion that the tenant's right in the land was that of a raiyat at a fixed rate. He was an occupancy raiyat and nothing more.
4. Then it is urged on behalf of the appellant that, as between the landlord and the occupancy raiyat, the proper method of apportionment must be to give the landlord a sum representing the capitalized value of the rent plus an estimated sum for the value of possible enhancements in the future or possible forfeiture, and to give the whole of the balance to the tenant. That method has been adopted in some cases. But, in the present instance, it would be inapplicable. This land is not agricultural and situated in the midst of agricultural land. Changing conditions have given it an increased value as being a prospective building site. I do not think that it would be right, in such circumstances, first to assess the value of the landlord's interest in the land as agricultural land and nothing more, and then, after deducting that amount, to hand over the balance right method seems to me to approach the subject from the point of view of what the tenant should get as a tenant of agricultural land and, after capitalizing the tenant's interest, to give the whole of the balance to the landlord. That is the method which the learned President has adopted and I method. As to the valuation which the learned President has adopted and I entirely agree with him that it is the right method. As to the valuation which the learned President has put upon the tenants's right, he has taken it as high as Rs. 100 per cotta. That is no doubt high. But there is no material before us on which we ought to modify it and we are not asked to modify it. From that sum he has deducted an estimated sum of Rs. 400 for the whole area as representing the capitalized value of the actual rent plus the capitalized value of future enhancements and possible forfeiture. This brings the sum payable to the tenant in respect of a third share to Rs. 800. I think that sum is, in the circumstances, a reasonable one. In my judgment, therefore, the decision of the lower Court should be affirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs. Hearing-fee two gold mohurs.
5. The cross-objection is not pressed and is dismissed without any order as to costs.
6. I agree.