Revenue sale title to a house on the land was excluded, and compensation apportionment had to reflect realistic removal value.

A revenue sale under Act XI of 1859 transferred only the Government's interest in the revenue-liable estate and did not pass title to a house on the land, because the statute did not clearly include the superstructure. The building therefore remained with its owners. On subsequent land acquisition, compensation for the house had to be apportioned between the land purchaser and the house owners on a realistic basis, taking account of the landowner's right to require removal, the demolition value if removed, the price a landowner might pay as a purchaser, and the period of lost enjoyment. The matter was remitted for fresh determination of the house owners' share.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revenue sale under Act XI of 1859 passed title to a house standing on the land sold. (ii) Whether, and on what basis, the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the house was to be apportioned between the purchaser of the land and the owners of the house.

Issue (i): Whether a revenue sale under Act XI of 1859 passed title to a house standing on the land sold.

Analysis: The sale under Act XI of 1859 was a sale of the Government's interest in the estate liable to revenue, and the word "estate" in that context was not to be read as automatically including a building standing on the land. Having regard to Indian notions of the separation of ownership of land and buildings, and in the absence of special words making the building subject to sale, the statutory power of sale was held to extend to the land and revenue-paying estate, not to the superstructure.

Conclusion: The house did not pass to the purchaser by the revenue sale, and title to the building remained with the defendants.

Issue (ii): Whether, and on what basis, the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the house was to be apportioned between the purchaser of the land and the owners of the house.

Analysis: After the sale, the purchaser would have owned the land and the defendants would have owned the house. The proper measure of the defendants' share could not be fixed on the assumption adopted by the High Court, and had to reflect the practical position that the landowner could require removal of the house, the demolition value of the house if removed, the possibility that the landowner might pay more as a possible purchaser, and the period during which the landowner would be kept out of enjoyment if removal were required. As the parties had not agreed, the matter had to be sent back for determination of the proper share.

Conclusion: The compensation for the house had to be apportioned, and the matter was remitted for determination of the defendants' proper share.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the High Court's decree was varied, the purchaser's entitlement to the land compensation was affirmed, and the question of the balance attributable to the house was remitted for fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a revenue sale for arrears of revenue, the statutory power transfers only the estate or land subject to revenue, and a superstructure on the land does not pass unless the statute clearly so provides.

---