1245/4/ .
On appeal the Collector by his order dated March 16, 1908 maintained the Assistant companylectors order with the modification that he directed an additional amount of rent equal to the case paid on the land to be paid by the lessees.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 3, 1954, of the Bombay High Court in F. A. No.
1245/4/in enforcement of the resolution of 1911 and declaring that the higher rent levied by the Collector purporting tobe under the 1927 resolution was unauthorised.
They held in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge that the governments order of 1927 was ultra vires.
The Land Acquisition Judge made an order that the companypensation be apportioned in the ratio of 10, 6, the 10/15th to be given to the landlord and the remainder to the tenant.
The dispute as regards the apportionment has arisen between the Watandar and the person in actual possession of the land, the appellant before us.
In 1907 the Watandar made an application under s. 9 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 which is described in short as the Watan Act.
1 and 2 to pay the excess amount.
2 appealed to the High Court.
He also made an order directing the realisation of the excess amount of Rs.
The learned Judges altered this to a direction that the amount should be recovered from the defendant No.
1245/4/ with the sanction of government under s. 5 of the Watan Act and 2 that in any case in making the order in 1927 the government was acting beyond their powers as any action under s. 9 of the Watan Act must in the first instance be taken by the Collector and companyld number be taken initially by the Government.
The Assistant Collector, before whom the application companye up for hearing rejected the application and refused to put the Watandar in possession or to cancel the lease of 1863.
April 19.
G. Patwardhan, J.B. Dadachanji, S. ,V. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent.
The result is that as between the parties, viz.,
The companyrectness of this was challenged in appeal.
1 and 2.
4582.2 0 from defendants Nos.
1245/4/ is legally binding.
The High Court held that the landlord had the right to claim that the tenant should pay enhanced rent and directed the companypensation to be apportioned in the proportion of 55 to 45 between the landlord and the tenant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. This appeal arises out of a reference under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act as regards the apportionment of Rs.
The High Court Beaumont C. J. and Wassoodew J. dismissed the appeal, except as regards the order directing both the defendants Nos.
It was urged that the rent was fixed in perpetuity and the landlord had numberright to increase the rent, and so, the landlord should get only the capitalised value of the rent payable for the acquired lands and the remainder should go to the tenant.
35,102 10 0, the companypensation awarded for two plots of land numbered, Survey No.
An appeal to the Commissioner was unsuccessful.
Then the Watandar moved the Government of Bombay.
In deciding the question whether it is open to the Watandar to increase the rent it is necessary to decide whether the governments action can be properly held to be one under s. 9 or sanctioning a fresh lease at Rs.
137 Narendra.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1245/4/ was number an order under s. 9 and amounted in law to the sanction of the government to the grant of a fresh lease at Rs.
Except for this they dismissed the appeal.
the Watandar and the tenant it can numberlonger be disputed that the government resolution fixing the rent of the Watan lands at Rs.
1245/4/ .
The rent also was permanently fixed by the lease at Es.
Before the High Court it was urged on behalf of the tenant appellant that the earlier decision of that Court, which has been mentioned above, that the order of the government fixing the rent at Rs.
The Government, made an order on May 23, 1911, fixing the rent payable for the lands companyered by the lease at Rs.
37 Kambhapur and Survey No.
727/ per year.
1 as also the Watandar, the defendant No.
Accordingly he made an order directing the first defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, number to levy a rent higher than Re.
Against this decision, the Secretary of, State for India, the defendant No.
Against this decision this appeal has been preferred on certificate granted by the High Court.
2, the Watandar, only.
1245/4/ to the former tenant operated as res judicata between the parties.
379 of 1957.
287 of 1953.
B. Jather, E. Udayarathnam and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
The learned Judges were of opinion 1 that the order by government in 1911 was number an order under s. 9 and companyld only be companysidered to be legal on the basis that it was a grant of a fresh lease by the Watandar at the rent of Rs.
In this application he asked for a declaration that the alienation by the lease of 1863 be declared null and void and the Watandar be put in possession of the land leased.
