Maharaja Bir Chunder Manickya Bahadoor vs Nobin Chunder Dutt

The question raised in this case is one of apportionment of compensation allowed by Government under Act I of 1894, in respect of certain lands taken up for public purposes. The claimants before us are, on the one hand, the Maharaja of Hill Tipperah. and on the other, one Nobin Chunder Dutt, who claims to be a talukdar of the properly, a portion of which has been acquired by Government for public purposes. The learned judge of the Court below has found that the taluk is held by the Defendant at a fixed rent, and is of a transferable and heritable character; and he adds:-- "There is nothing to weaken the conclusion that the taluk is a permanent one held at a fixed rent and liable to transference and inheritance.'''' He ultimately holds that, under the circumstances of the case, the zemindar would be entitled to the capitalized value on Rs. 7-8, that being the rent of the particular parcel of land that has been taken up by Government, if the talukdar had claimed an abatement of rent; but inasmuch as he does not make any such claim, the zemindar is not entitled to anything; and, therefore, the whole of the compensation-money allowed by Government should go to the talukdar. [After discussing the evidence regarding the character of the taluk, the judgment proceeds as follows] :--

Upon these grounds we are of opinion that the taluk held by Nobin Chunder Dutt is of a permanent character, so far as the duration is concerned, but it is not so as regards the rent payable.

The learned judge of the District Court has held that the zemindar is not entitled to anything more than the capitialized value upon Rs. 7-8; but that opinion is based entirely upon his finding that the interest of Nobin Chunder Dutt is permanent, both as regards duration and rent.

Then arises the question what would be the fair apportionment of the compensation-money allowed by Government ? The learned District Judge has referred to the case of A. M. Dunne v. Nobo Krishna Mookerjee I. L. R. 17 Cal. 144. He refers to it evidently for the purpose of supporting his view that the interest of Nobin Chunder Dutt should be taken to be one of a permanent character; but it will be observed that although the learned judges in that case held that the Defendant had a permanent interest in the tenure which he claimed, still they were of opinion that the fair apportionment of the compensation-money between him and the zemindar would be to divide it into two equal moieties, one moiety being given to the zemindar and the other moiety to the tenure-holder. We may, however, say that it is almost impossible to lay down any fixed principle guiding the action of the Courts in a case like this. Each case must depend upon its own merits. No doubt in a case where a grant of a permanent interest is made upon receipt of a considerable bonus, the landlord practically parts with the whole of his interest, save and except the small rent that is reserved to himself; and in that case it is almost impossible to say that the division between the landlord and the tenant should be half and half, as it was done in the case of A. M. Dunne v. Nobo Krishna Mookerjee I. L. R. 17 Cal. 144, But in this particular case it does not appear that any bonus was paid for the grant of the taluk, and the rent was not fixed in perpetuity. That being so, we are unable to agree with the judge that the zemindar has no other interest than the rent of Rs. 49, and that he is not entitled to get any share in the compensation-money. In the case of Godadhar Dass v. Dhunpul Sing I. L. R. 7 Cal. 585, Sir Richard Garth, in delivering the judgment of the Court, made certain observations which may with advantage be here referred to. He said as follows : "As regards the zemindar it is a mistake to suppose that his interest in the land is confined entirely to the rent which he receives from the putnidar. He is the owner of it under the Government, and in the event of the putni coining to an end by sale, forfeiture or otherwise, the property would revert to the zemindar, who might deal with it as he pleased in its improved state; and although in some cases, and possibly in this, the chance of the putni coming to an end may be more or less remote, there is no doubt that in all cases the zemindar is entitled to some compensation (small though it be) for the loss of his rights. At any rate, he would generally be entitled to receive at least as much as the putnidar, to whom in this instance the whole compensation has been awarded," and so on. The interest which we hold that the Defendant possesses is not of a putnidar, but of a talukdar, whose taluk is held at a variable rate of rent; and it follows, therefore, that the zemindar has a much larger interest than to receive the capitalized value upon the rent reserved. We do not propose to lay down in this case any rule of proportion as applicable to other cases of the kind; but we think we may well say that the apportionment in this case should be to divide the compensation-money in two equal moieties, as was done in the case of A. M. Dunne v. Nobo Krishna Mookerjee I. L. R. 17 Cal. 144 to which we have already referred.

In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that the decree of the District Judge should be set aside, and in lieu thereof, it should be declared that the Plaintiff-Maharaja is entitled to obtain one-half of the compensation-money, the other half going to the talukdar-- it being understood that the Defendant has not claimed and does not claim any abatement of rent on account of the land that has been acquired by Government for public purposes. We think that, in the circumstances of the case, each party should bear his own costs both in this Court and in the lower Court.