9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (4) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the present appeal was the claim of the appellants that certain buildings which had been erected by the Government on the land at the date of the Government's declaration of the 4th November, 1920, under the Sixth section of the Land Acquisition Act had become and were the appellant's property, and that he should be allowed the value of the land in the state in which it then was, that is to say, with the buildings on it. The way that question has arisen is as follows: 2. It appears that in 1919 the Government resolved to acquire the land in question and other land under the said Act, and by arrangement with certain of the sutidars they took possession of such land, including a portion which was in the occupation and the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low the value of the building to be considered in assessing the amount of compensation to be paid to the appellant. In the course of his judgment the learned Chief Justice said: It is curious to have to remark that Government entered upon this area before the land was actually notified for acquisition. They seem to have done so in the belief that they could get the consent of the occupants to such possession. They not only took possession, but erected buildings on the land. The learned Chief Justice, however, held that the question was decided by the principles laid down in the case of Premji Jivan Bhate v. Haji Cassum Juma Ahmed 20 B. 298, and he quoted from the judgment of Sargent, C.J., in that case as follows:-- It is well-established ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect. The judgment was given by Barnes Peacock, C.J., who stated as follows: We have not been able to find in the laws or customs of this country any traces of the existence of an absolute 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. 3. And later on he adds: We think it clear that, according to the usages and customs of this country, buildings and other such improvements made on land do not, by the mere accident of their attachment to the soil, become the property of the owner of the soil; and we think it should be laid down as a general rule that, if he who makes the improvement is not a mere trespasser, but is in possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleaded or proved in the present case. We, therefore, think the plaintiff is clearly entitled as against the defendant, a trespasser, to possession of his land, leaving defendant at liberty to remove the bricks of his house . 5. Again, in cases reported as Narayan v. Bholagir Guru Mangir 6 B.H.C.R.A.C.J. 80 etc., where H., knowing that B. claimed certain land as his own, nevertheless purchased the land from a third person and erected a bungalow thereon which B. did not interfere to prevent. Couch, C.J., in giving judgment said, H. took the risk, and, as he was informed of B.'s claim, it was not necessary for the latter to give a notice. We cannot, however, apply to cases arising in India the doctrine of the English Law as to buildin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequence followed that in any case of trespass by building on the lands of another such trespasser had a right to remove the structure or be paid the value thereof by the owner and he relied upon the fact that no case drawing a distinction in the nature or degree of the trespass could be found. Their Lordships, however, do not think it necessary to give a decision upon this far-reaching contention. They agree with what was apparently the view of both Courts in India that under the circumstances of this case as already set forth by the law of India, which they appear to have correctly interpreted the Government officials were in possession not as mere trespassers but under such a colour of title that the buildings erected by them on the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the District Judge. The main contentious were (1) that as the land had admittedly potentialities as building land the High Court had not the evidence before it to reduce the estimate made by the District Judge and in fact ignored the evidence upon this point and (2) that the District Judge when he dealt with the transaction relating to a plot of the land Survey No. 170 containing 16,000 square yards and sold in the month of April, 1920, at 8 annas per square yard was right in accepting this transaction as a reasonable guide to the value of all the land in question on the ground that this plot was not so favourably situate as the bulk of the land. The High Court has very fully dealt with these considerations and given their reasons for not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
