HAJI MOHAMMAD EKRAMUL HAQ versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 922 · Decided: 16-12-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

lt1a1iarana Shri 
J ayavanlsinhji, 
Ranmalsinhji 
v. 
Th6 Slal6 of 
Bombay 
and Others 
S11bb11 Rao ] . 
z958 
December I6. 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] Supp. 
occupants with the result that they would be liable to 
pay land revenue in accordance with the provisions of 
the Land Revenue Code. If sub-s. (2) was not inserted 
in s. 5, they would be liable to pay land-revenue under 
the Code, notwithstanding the declaration made or the 
agreement entered into by the Government with them 
in regard to the jama payable by them. Sub-section (2) 
was only enacted to preserve to them the concession 
till the period fixed had expired. 
We, therefore, hold 
that the declaration made by the Governor in Council 
in 1925-26 expired in 1955-56 and the appellants 
became liable to pay the entire land-revenue according 
to the settlement registers from the year 1955-56. 
In the result, all the appeals and the Writ Petitions 
a.re dismissed with costs, the State of Bombay and the 
Collector of Ahmedabad, who are the respondents 
herein, getting one set of hearing costs in all. 
Petitions dismissed. 
HAJI MOHAMMAD EKRAMUL HAQ 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Rcquisition-Compensatioii-Potwtial vali<e • of property-
Defrnce of India Act, s. I9-Land Acquisition Act, I894 (I of 
I894), S. 23. 
The four storied premises in suit belonging to the appellant 
were requisitioned by the respondent for the purposes of the 
Controller of Army Factory Accounts who already had his office 
in a neighbouring house. The arbitrator, to whom the question 
of 
compensation was referred, 
awarded compensation of 
Rs. 2,581-S-o according to the rent prevailing in the locality for 
sit:nilar buildings \vith sirailar acco1nmodation and amenities. 
This included an additional award of 10% for the potentialities 
of the premises consisting of the special value of the premises 
for the Controller, the indefinite period of the requisition and 
additional burden on the lift. On appeal by the appellant the 
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
923 
High Court held the compensation to be Rs. 2,773/- per mensem. 
It rejected the additional award of 103 for potential value. 
Held, that the High Court was wrong in ignoring the poten-
tial value of the premises which had been evaluated at 103 by 
the arbitrator.. The principles for the award of compensation 
are the same under s. 19 Defence of India Act as under s. 23 . 
Land Acquisition Act, and one of them is to evaluate the poten-
tialities of the premises which differ under different circum-
stances. Such value is to be ascertained by the arbitrator as , 
best as he can from the materials before him . 
.Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. The Revenue Divisional 
Offi[er, (1939) L.R. 66 I.A. 104, followed. 
p1v1L 
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 191of1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated July 31, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court 
in First Appeal No. 88 of 1950, arising out of the 
judgment and decree dated May 18, 195Q, of the 
Arbitrator, 24-Parganas, Alipore, in L.A. Case No. 71 
of 1944. 
I 
. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal, for the 
appellant. 
B. Sen, P. K. Ghose for P. K. Bose, for the respon-
dent. 
1958. December 16. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
KAl'UR, J.-This is an appeal pursuant to special 
leave granted by this Court against the judgment and 
order of the High Court of Calcutta varying the order 
of the arbitrator in regard to compensation for com-
pulsory requisitioning of the premises in dispute. 
The appellant before us is the owner of the premises 
in dispute which at the relevant time consisted of four 
storeys, the ground floor and three upper floors and 
the respondent is the State of West Bengal which was 
the opposite party before the arbitrator. This building 
(No. 9 Chittaranja.n Avenue) was constructed before 
July 28, 1940, and was ta.ken on a. registered lease for 
three yea.rs by the Bengal Central Public Works Divi-
sion on a rental of Rs. 1,950 per mensem inclusive of 
taxes. On the termination of the lease the building 
was requisitioned by the West Bengal Government 
and taken possession of on July 30, 1943. The Land 
Haji Mohammad 
Ekramul Haq 
'v. 
Ths State of 
West Bengal 
Kapur J. 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPOR',[S [1959] Supp. 
r95B 
Acquisition Officer offered Rs. 2,200 per mensem inclu-
-
sive of taxes in the form of rent as eompensa.tion. As,'"' 
Haji Mohammad th 
JJ 
t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.