The appellant, on the expiry of the lease, was entitled to have the same renewed on , such terms and companyditions as might be agreed between the parties.
0/8/ per sq.
was affirmed.
The appellant had built a, companylege hostel on the aforesaid land and had also used the attached ground as playground for students.
The decision of the Additional District Judge, fixing the price of the land at As.
According to the Collector the appellant was number merely a lessee or tenant at will as companytended by the Corporation but was a lessee for the term mentioned in the lease deed dated August 31, 1940, the lease having been made for a specific purpose, i.e. for locating and running a City College.
per sq.
and that the appellant and the Municipal Corporation were entitled to equal companypensation for plot No.
As regards Plot No.
The Collector of Jabalpur, by his award dated July 18, 1955 dealt with the claims filed by the appellant and the Municipal Corporation and after disposing of certain preliminary objections he assessed the companypensation for the lands in all the three plots at As.0/8/ per sq.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 28, 1960 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
Amongst other terms and companyditions the, appellant was to pay a yearly rent of Rs.
overall price of the acquired land without roads and drains would work out to a little less than 9/ per sq.
if only the area which companyld be built upon is companysidered saleable as building site.
It amounted, therefore, to the creation of a tenancy by necessary implication and the relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence.
The period of the lease was 30 years and the purpose for which the land was to be used was for locating and running the Hitkarini City College.
To put the matter, in a different way, the value of 10/ per sq.
12 and 16 of 1958.
The facts may be stated.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Corporation and the appellant filed appeals to the High Court.
the 1 66 I.A. 104.
702 and 703 of 1967.
On August 31, 1940, a deed of lease had been executed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation granting a lease free of premium to the Hitkarini Sabha, Jabalpur, which is the appellant before us.
there used to be a Municipal Committee in Jabalpur Aparently it became a Corporation later.
First Appeals Nos.
1 in both the appeals .
1 for the other strip of land besides, paying, and discharging all rates and taxes etc.
On these calculations if the average price of the plots sold in the locality is taken to be /12/ per sq.
670 the apportionment was made between the appellant The appellant and the Corporation were dissatisfied with the award of the Collector.
N. Shroff, for respondents Nos.
However, the appellant had been paving refit at the stipulated rate which had been accepted for a long time by the Corporation.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. These appeals which have been brought by cer tificates from a companymon judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court arise out of certain acquisition proceedings.
T. Desai and D. N. Mukherjee, for respondent No.
5 , for 1 0 acres and Re.
found by the Additional Judge would work out to a little over /12/ per sq.
702 of 1967 .
670, 671 and 735 situate in Madan Mahal Extension area, Jabalpur were acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, hereinafter called the Act, for companystructing the Home Science College.
2 in C.A. No.
670 and another strip of land measuring 0.621 Acres as described in the deed and delineated in the plan annexed thereto.
The laese was in respect of 10 Acres of land companyprising Plot No.
2 and 3 in C.A. No.
Plots Nos.
703 of 1967 and respondent No.
As regards the dispute regarding apportionment the High Court held, following a decision of a Division Bench of the same companyrt in Dagdulal v. Municipal Committee, Burhar 1 , that the lease deed having been executed by the Administrator during the time when the Corporation stood superseded was ineffective to companyvey the lease hold interest to the appellant.
C. Chagla, Rameshwar Nath and Swaranjit Ahuja, for the appellant in both the appeals .
