1910 (6) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ossession in February 1903, and an award was made by him which was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Chittagong. 2. Now, the lands may be conveniently considered under two heads: first, there are what have been termed the dock lands to which Appeals Nos. 2 37, 298, 299 and 301 relate, and secondly, what have been termed the brick lauds to which Appeal No. 300 relates. In respect of the dock lands which measure 2.26 kanis, the award was at the rate of ₹ 100 per kani; in respect of the brick lands which measure 10.3 kanis, the award was ₹ 10 per kani. What we have to ascertain in this case is whether these awards represent that to which the appellant before us is entitled as representing and being the market-value of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his determination on the 24th of March 1908. The maps in the case show that in 1906 this land had not been eaten up by this process of erosion, except that in October 1906, a very small part of it had been worn away. There was no evidence given before the District Judge that two years later when the case was before him in 1908-there had been any further erosion, so that five years after the date, in reference to which the value was to be ascertained, the acquired land, for all that appears in the evidence, was still in existence. Had it disappeared, it is hardly to be supposed that evidence to that effect would not have been given. It, therefore, appears to me that the learned Judge was not justified in allowing so small a multiplier of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udge. It seems to me that there must have been something wrong here. The first thing that we have to ascertain is whether these lands were rightly placed in the category of waste lands. The evidence on that point stands thus. They undoubtedly were, at the time they were bought, the lands in which there were pits, and that they could not have been used for the purpose of cultivation without some expenditure on them. It is sworn on the part of the claimant that an expenditure was made, the lands were levelled and they became arable lands. Prima facie, that would go to show that they no longer could be described as waste lands at the time of the declaration. Now, what have the Government brought forward by way of opposition to this evidence? I....