Skip to content


Maharaja Sasi Kanta Acharyya Bahadur Vs. Abdur Rahman Sarkar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in75Ind.Cas.203
AppellantMaharaja Sasi Kanta Acharyya Bahadur
RespondentAbdur Rahman Sarkar and ors.
Excerpt:
land acquisition act (i of 1894), section 18 - acquisition of land in possession of tenant--no reference by landlord--reference at instance of tenant--separate sum awarded--landlord, right of. - 1. this is an appeal by the landlord in an apportionment case under the land acquisition act. the collector valued the land and made an award in favour of the landlord alone on the ground that under the contract of tenancy, the landlord alone was entitled to the entire compensation. the landlord was satisfied with the amount which was thus awarded to him. the tenant, however, obtained an order of reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act to the land acquisition judge, who has held that, apart from what the landlord has received, the tenant is entitled to a sum of rs. 357-8. the landlord now contends that under the terms of the contract between him and his tenant he is entitled to this additional sum. it is not necessary to consider the legal effect of the terms of the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the landlord in an apportionment case under the Land Acquisition Act. the Collector valued the land and made an award in favour of the landlord alone on the ground that under the contract of tenancy, the landlord alone was entitled to the entire compensation. The landlord was satisfied with the amount which was thus awarded to him. The tenant, however, obtained an order of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Land Acquisition Judge, who has held that, apart from what the landlord has received, the tenant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 357-8. The landlord now contends that under the terms of the contract between him and his tenant he is entitled to this additional sum. It is not necessary to consider the legal effect of the terms of the contract between the parties; for it is plain that as the landlord was satisfied with the sum which Was awarded to him by the Collector and never asked for a reference under Section 18, he cannot now deprive the tenant of the additional sum which the latter has been able to obtain from the Land Acquisition Judge under a reference made at his instance alone.

2. The result is that the decree made by the Land Acquisition Judge is affirmed but not for the reasons given by him.

3. As this appeal has not been contested we make no order as to costs.


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