35102 10 0 the companypensation awarded for two plots of land numbered survey number 37 kambhapur and survey number 137 narendra.
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.
1245/4/ .
an appeal to the companymissioner was unsuccessful.
before the high companyrt it was urged on behalf of the tenant appellant that the earlier decision of that companyrt which has been mentioned above that the order of the government fixing the rent at 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.
the result is that as between the parties viz.
the watandar and the tenant it can numberlonger be disputed that the government resolution fixing the rent of the watan lands at rs.
on appeal the companylector 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.
1 and 2.
he also made an order directing the realisation of the excess amount of rs.
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 companylector and companyld number be taken initially by the government.
the learned judges altered this to a direction that the amount should be recovered from the defendant number 2 the watandar only.
except for this they dismissed the appeal.
1245/4/ the proportionate rent for the lands acquired that is 30 acres and 32 gunthas works out at about rs.
numberappeal was however preferred by the plaintiff.
the result is that out of the amount of companypensation awarded for these lands the respondent being the landlord is entitled to only the capitalised value of the rent.
the rent also was permanently fixed by the lease at rs.
1245/4/ in enforcement of the resolution of 1911 and declaring that the higher rent levied by the companylector purporting to be under the 1927 resolution was unauthorised.
against this decision this appeal has been preferred on certificate granted by the high companyrt.
against this decision the secretary of state for india the defendant number 1 as also the watandar the defendant number 2 appealed to the high companyrt.
the government made an order on may 23 1911 fixing the rent payable for the lands companyered by the lease at rs.
the assistant companylector 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.
4582 2 0 from defendants number.
and wassoodew j. dismissed the appeal except as regards the order directing both the defendants number.
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.
727/ per year.
the dispute as regards the apportionment has arisen between the watandar and the person in actual possession of the land the appellant before us.
they held in agreement with the learned subordinate judge that the governments order of 1927 was ultra vires.
the companyrectness of this was challenged in appeal.
then the watandar moved the government of bombay.
1245/4/ to the former tenant operated as res judicata between the parties.
it is numberlonger disputed that these form part of a watan.
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.
accordingly he made an order directing the first defendant the secretary of state for india in companyncil number to levy a rent higher than rs.
the rent for the entire watan which is stated to be 400 acres of land being rs.
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.
1245/4/ .
95/9/ .
1 and 2 to pay the excess amount.
