TMI Blog1927 (3) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1920, a sale certificate was issued to the plaintiff by the Collector of the 24 Perganas, certifying that the plaintiff bad purchased, under Act 11 of 1859, the mahal, which was specified in the certificate and which was situate in the Touzi of the district of 24 Perganas. It appears from the copy of the certificate which is before their Lordships that it was therein stated that the purchase took effect on the 1st May 1919. At the hearing of the appeal by their Lordships there was a dispute as to the correctness of the last-mentioned date. Walmsley, J., in his judgment referred to this date as the 1st May, 1920, while Mukherji, J., referred to it as the 1st May 1919. If it becomes necessary to ascertain the correct date a reference will be necessary for that purpose. On the 2nd August, 1920, a declaration was made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, viz., Act 1 of 1894, in respect of the holding and on the 11th March, 1921, the Deputy Collector made his award. The total amount of the award was ₹ 14,569 (omitting annas and pies.) The sum awarded in respect of the land and trees, and the additional compensation under Section 23(2) was ₹ 2,181, and the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding, less a sum of ₹ 2,300. The sum of ₹ 2,300 was awarded by the learned Judges as compensation to the plaintiff at the rate of ₹ 100 per month in respect of 23 months, which period was calculated from the 1st May 1919, to the 11th March 1921, when the Collector took possession of the premises. 8. From this decision the plaintiff has appealed. The first question is whether the learned Judges of the High Court were right in holding that the title to the building did not pass to the plaintiff by reason of his purchase at the revenue auction sale. 9. It was not disputed that if the plaintiff's case was based upon a conveyance by the late proprietor of the land, the house would pass with the land to the purchaser; but it was argued on behalf of the defendants that as the sale in question was under the Act 11 of 1859 it was merely a sale by the Collector of the Government's interest. This part of the defendants' contention is, in their Lordships' opinion, correct; for in Surja Kant a Acharjya Bahadur v. Sarat Chandra Boy Chaudhuri [1914] 18 C.W.N. 1281 the Judicial Committee held that on the failure of an owner to pay th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule of Law that whatever is affixed or built on the soil becomes a part of it, and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soil itself. 14. Their Lordships, therefore, are of opinion that in construing the provisions of the above-mentioned Acts it is necessary' to bear in mind the statement made by Sir Barnes Peacock in the above-mentioned case which seems to have been accepted for many years as a correct pronouncement. 15. This being so, the word estate must be taken to have a more limited meaning than it would have in English law and the Government's power of sale for arrears of revenue prima facie is limited to the land, which is subject to the payment to the Government of the annual revenue, and in respect of which the proprietor is entered in the General Register of Revenue-paying Estates, and having special regard to the view held in India respecting the separation of the ownership of buildings from the ownership of the land, and to the recognition by the Courts in India that there is no rule of law that whatever is affixed or built on the soil becomes a part of it, and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinary course would be no more than what has been called demolition value, viz., the value of the materials less the cost of removal; and if the defendants did not remove the house they would lose it. There is, however, the possibility that (if the land had not been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act) the owner of the land would not have desired or required the removal of the house, and he might have been willing to pay to the defendants, the owners of the house, more than the mere demolition value of the house. In other words, the owner of the land would be a possible purchaser, who might be willing to give more for the house than anyone else, as he was the owner of the land. It is also to be remembered and taken into consideration that if the defendants were called upon to remove the house they would be entitled to a reasonable time for such removal, and that during such time the plaintiff would be kept out of enjoyment: of the land. 20. All the above-mentioned matters will have to be taken into consideration in assessing what portion of the compensation money awarded in respect of the house should be paid to the defendants. Their Lordships are not in a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
