ivil Appeal No 3095 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 1487 of the Madras High Court in C RP No 37087
TS Krishnamurthy Iyer V Krishnamurthy V Balachandran and V Ramamoorthy for the Appellant
Shanti Bhushan section Rangarajan and Sanjay Prakash for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN J
1
After having heard learned counsel on both sides we grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself by this order the point involved being a very short one
Real estate prices all over the country and particularly in important capital cities have spiralled up in the last few decades to such heights that disputes over land which at one time could have been resolved by a little give and take between the parties have now assumed a magnitude which makes any type of reconciliation impossible
In this case where that dispute arises out of a lease by a prominent charitable trust in Madras in favour of a well established engineering company of all India stature we were somewhat hopeful that the parties would agree not to waste further time and energy in litigation but would come to some reasonable compromise
We tried our best by adjourning the case several times and encouraging the parties to come up with various proposals for compromise
PG NO 758 Ultimately however we found that it was not possible to bring the parties together
We there fore proceed to dispose of the issues raised in the appeal
1951 Ms Larsen  Toubro
the appellant company took on lease from the respondent trustees a property situated in a busy central locality of the city of Madras
In 1975 the trustees filed a suit for possession
The appellant company respondent by claiming protection under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants  Protection Act No 111 of 1922 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
The short question that arises in the appeal is whether the company is entitled to this protection
The above piece of legislation was enacted primarily for the protection of small tenants who in certain municipal towns and adjoining areas had constructed buildings on others  lands by ensuring that they are not evicted so long as they pay a fair rent for the land
The Act also contained a provision under which the tenant could put forward a claim to purchase the land in question from the owner at its average market value of the three immediately preceding years
It is highly doubtful whether the Act was intended to enable affluent persons or prosperous companies like the present appellant to take advantage of its provisions to compel a lessor to Sell to them property of which they have obtained initial possession as lessees
However the question has to be decided not on such general considerations but on the language of the statute itself and so we proceed to discuss the issue involved
It is first necessary to advert to the terms of the lease deed
By the lease deed dated 138
1951 the lessors trustees purported to demise to the lessee company all that plot of vacant land and the buildings erected thereon and more particularly described in the schedule hereto and delineated in the plan hereto annexed and measuring 17 grounds and 321 sq
ft or thereabouts
The term of the lease was 21 years from the date of the lease
The consideration was a monthly rent of Rs900 for the aforesaid land and a monthly rent of Rs350 for the aforesaid buildings aggregating in all to Rs1250 per month and the other conditions and covenants set out in the deed
Paras I or II of the lease deed set out the following among otherCovenants between the parties a The lessee was to pay and had paid an advance of Rs15000 to the lessor refundable without interest on the termination of the lease  PG NO 759 b the lessee was to pay the rent reserved regularly whether or not any buildings were erected by the lessees on the demised land and irrespective of whether the land or the buildings were of use to them for the purposes for which they were taken on lease  xxx xxx xxx e the lessee was to comply with all municipal and local regulations in the erection and completion of any buildings on the demised plot
 f the lessors were to pay the property tax for the existing demised building but the lessees were to pay all taxes rates etc
chargeable in respect of any buildings to be erected by the lessees on the demised plot  xxx xxx xxx h if and when the lessees sublet the demised land or any part thereof or the demised buildings or any portion or portions thereof at any higher rental and the Corporation authorities levy a property tax on the demised land or buildings higher than that based on a monthly rent of Rs950 and Rs300 respectively the lessees shall pay such excess tax if any to the lessors
xxx xxx xxx j the lessees were to enjoy the demised land during the term of the lease but surrender the demised land and the buildings to the lessors at the termination of the lease xxx xxx xxx m the lessees during the subsistence of the lease were to renovate at their own cost the demised buildings or any portion or portions thereof and carry out and effect all repairs considered necessary for their use and habitation
Under Para III of the lease deed it was agreed between the parties inter alia a that in case of any default in the payment of rent or any breach of the covenant between the parties the lessor could re enter upon the demised plot and buildings PG NO 760 or upon any part thereof in the name of the whole and determine the lease  b that in case the lessee fulfilled his obligations under the lease and gave six months  prior notice of his desire to obtain a renewal of the lease the lessors shall grant a renewal lease of the demised plot and building for a further period of 21 years  c if during the subsistence of this lease the lessors get an offer for the purchase of the demised plot of land or the buildings or both from third parties at a valuation acceptable to the lessors they shall intimate such offers to the lessees and give them the option of buying the demised plot and buildings at such valuation and if within two weeks of receipts of such intimation to the lessees they do not send a reply to the lessors expressing their consent to buy at such valuation and do not further pay to the lessors a deposit or earnest money towards the intended purchase the lessors shall be entitled to sell the demised plot of land or buildings to such third parties for the price for which it was offered to the said lessees and any such sale to third parties shall be only subject to this lease
The lessees shall be in the event of their purchase of the demised plot and buildings themselves pay and bear the stamp registration and all other charges incidental to the deed of conveyance
The schedule to the lease deed described the demised property as all that piece or parcel of land marked J  washed in yellow colour in the plan hereto stitched and measuring 17 grounds 32 I sq
or there abouts and forming part of the entire piece or parcel of land with bungalow known as Club Chambers  and bearing No 1 Patullo s Road and No 5 Club House Road 
  To turn now to the statute the relevant provisions are not many and may next be set out
The Act came into force in 1922S1 applies the Act only to tenancies of land in certain towns and their adjoining areas in Tamil Nadu created before a particular date but there is no dispute that it does apply
within the city of Madras and that the lease deed in the instant case is prior to the specified date
section 2 contains the definitions of which we are concerned only with the following
1  Building  means any building hut or other structure whether of masonry bricks
wood mud or metal or any other material whatsoever used PG NO 761 i for residential or non residential purposes in the City of Madras  
ii for residential purposes only in any other area and includes the appurtenance thereto
 2 Land does not include buildings
4 Tenant  in relation to any i means a person liable to pay rent in respect of such land under a tenancy agreement express or implied and ii includes a any such person as is referred to in sub clause i who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the tenancy agreement b any person who was a tenant in respect of such land under a tenancy agreement to which this Act is applicable under sub section 3 of section 1 and who or any of his predecessors in interest had erected any building on such land and who continues in actual physical possession of such land and building notwithstanding that 1 such person was not entitled to the rights under this Act by reason of the proviso to section 13 of this Act as it stood before the date of the publication of the Madras City Tenants  Protection Amendment Act 1972 Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1972 or 2 a decree for declaration or a decree or an order for possession or for similar relief has been passed against such person on the ground that the proviso to section 12 of this Act as it stood before the date of the publication of the Madras City Tenants  Protection Amendment Act Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1972 disentitled such person from claiming the rights under this Act
and c the heirs of any such person as is referred to in PG NO 762 sub clause i or sub clause iia or iib but does not include a sub tenant or his heirs
Section 3 entitles every tenant  on ejectment to be paid compensation for the value of any building which may have been erected by him by any of his predecessors in interest or by any person not in occupation at the time of ejectment who derived title from either of them
Section 4 requires the Court in a suit for ejectment against a tenant in which the landlord succeeds to determine the amount of compensation payable under Section 3 and direct the landlord to pay the same within a time to be specified in default of which the suit will stand dismissed and landlord debarred from instituting a fresh suit for ejectment or presenting a fresh suit for recovery of possession for a period of five years
Sections 7 and 7 A enable the landlord and tenant respectively to apply to the court to fix a reasonable rent for the occupation of the land and section 8 provides that the tenant shall not be liable to eviction for a period of five years from the date of fixation of fair rent
Section 9 confers a valuable right on the tenant
It reads in so far as it is relevant for our purpose as follows 9 1 a i  Any tenant who is entitled to compensation under section 3 and against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted   may within one month after the service on him of summons apply to the court for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell for a price to be fixed by the court the whole or part of the extent of land specified in the application
XXX XXX XXX b On such application the court shall first decided the minimum extent of the land which may be necessary for the convenient enjoyment by the tenant
The Court shall then fix the price of the minimum extent of the land decided as aforesaid or of the extent of the land specified in the application under cause a whichever is less
The price aforesaid shall be the average market value of the three years immediately preceding the date of the order
The court shall order that within a period to be determined by the court not being less than three months and not more than three years from the date of the order the tenant shall pay into court or otherwise as directed the price so fixed in one or more instalments with or without interest
PG NO 763 2 In default of payment by the tenant of any one instalment the application under clause a of sub section 1 shall stand dismissed provided that on sufficient cause being shown the court may excuse the delay and pass such orders as it may think fit but not so as to extend the time for payment beyond the three years above mentioned
On the application being dismissed the court shall order the amount of the instalment or instalments if any paid by the tenant to be repaid to him without any interest
3a On payment of the price fixed under clause b of sub section 1 the court shall pass an order directing the conveyance by the landlord to the tenant of the extent of land for which the said price was fixed
The court shall by the same order direct the tenant to put the landlord into possession of the remaining extent of the land if any
The stamp duty and registration fee in respect of such conveyance shall be borne by the tenant
b On the order referred to in clause a being made the suit  
shall stand dismissed and any decree or order in ejectment that may have been passed therein but which has not been executed shall be vacated
XXX XXX XXX Section 11 provides for a notice offering compensation in terms of the Act before any suit for ejectment could be filed against a tenant
Section 12 is of some relevance and needs to be set out Nothing in any contract made by a tenant shall take away or limits his rights under this Act
Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect any stipulations made by the tenant in writing registered as to the erection of buildings in so far as they relate to buildings erected after the date of the contract
 The proviso however was deleted with complete retrospective effect by an Amendment Act of 1972
When the trustees filed the suit for ejectment the company as already stated filed Application No 1541 of 1976 under Section 9 of the Act
This application was PG NO 764 accepted by the trial court
The court negatived the company s contention that it had exercised its option for the renewal of the lease for the period beyond the initial period of 21 years
However it was of the opinion that the company was entitled to the benefit of the Act and appointed a commissioner to inspect the property find out the market value of the property and fix the minimum extent of the property required by the defendant for convenient enjoyment of the super structure which it would be entitled to purchase in terms of Section 9
The trustees filed an appeal
They contended that the lease in favour of the company was that of a building with appurtenant land and that therefore the respondent was not entitled to the protection of section 9 of the Act and that therefore the application filed by the company should have been dismissed
The appeal was allowed
The company thereupon preferred a revision petition before the High Court
The Iearned Judge examined closely the terms of the lease deed between the parties discussed certain earlier decision of the Court and concluded that the first appellate court was right in holding that the lease was of a building and not of land and that therefore the application of the company under Section 9 was not maintainable
He therefore dismissed the revision petition
Hence the present appeal
From the statutory provisions set cut above it will be seen that the Act applies only to tenants in respect of land situated in certain areas where the tenancy has been created before a prescribed date
The only controversy here is whether the lease in question can be said to be a lease of land 
section 22 which purports in define land  only clarifies that land  does not include building  This takes us therefore to the definition of building  in section 21 which expression means any structure whatever put up on land and includes the appurtenance thereto 
From these definitions It will be clear that before a right of purchase can be exercised under Section 9 the tenant must be a tenant of land not comprising of buildings or lands appurtenant thereto
In the present case the High Court has observed as follows If a land with a building is leased out then T N Act III of 1972 would have no applicability to such a property
That there was a palatial building over the property could not be disputed because the property originally belonged to a notable dignitary in yester years who lived in that building with a spacious compound all round the property and which was enjoyed as an appurtenant area to the building PWl had stated that the plinth area of the building PG NO 765 XXX XXX XXX was about 5285 sq
In para 7 of the written statement defendants stated that the vacant site covered by the lease deed was about 35830 which is equal to 14 grounds and 323 sq feet
Under the lease deed the total area leased out was 17 grounds and 321 sq
Hence the building had occupied an area of nearly two grounds which would be roughly about one eighth of the total area
Hence it was not a tiny insignificant structure but a substantial building which was used as a residential building by a very affluent person and which had been later on given to the charity on a will executed by him
Under the Act if there is a structure built with mud or any other material of even a tiny dimension it would be a building for the purpose of the Act as defined in section 21 and section 32 being explicit that land does not include building the provisions of the Act could be availed of by the tenant only if he had taken vacant land on lease
XXX XXX XXX In the instant case a substantial building which had occupied one eighth of the area leased out cannot be overlooked particularly when the area was enjoyed us an appurtenant area for that building
Once a superstructure of such dimension had existed it will be impossible to apply the provisions of Act III of 1922 and hold that only the land had been taken on lease by defendant
underlining ours In other words the High Court came to the conclusion that in the present case there had been a lease not of vacant land but of a building with the land appertunant thereto and that therefore the provisions of the Act would not apply
Learned counsel for the appellant attacks the above finding on two grounds
ln the first place he points out that under the terms of the lease deed what was leased out was  
plot of vacant land and building erected thereon
This is the description given of the subject matter of the lease both in the preamble as well as in the Schedule
He therefore submits that the subject matter of the lease was a piece of vacant land on some portion of PG NO 766 which there were buildings and not of a building with appurtenant land
The second submission is that when the definition of building  talks to appurtenant land what it refers to is only such an extent of land as is absolutely necessary for the necessary and convenient enjoyment of the building in question
Pointing out that the building in the present case occupied barely an eighth of the area of the entire plot of land which was the subject matter of the lease he contends that the land covered by the lease cannot be said to be appurtenant land
In this context learned counsel relies on the definition of appurtenant  in Black s Law Dictionary Special Deluxe Fifth Edition page 94 which in so far as is relevant reads as follows Appurtenant belonging to accessory or incident to adjunct appeanded or annexed to answering to accessorium in civil law
Employed in leases for the purpose of including any easments or servitudes used or enjoyed with the demised premises
A thing is appurtenant  to something else when it stands in relation of an incident to a principal and is necessarily connected with the use and enjoyment of the latter
A thing is deemed to be incidental or appurtenant to land when it is by right used with the land for its benefit as in the case of a way or water course or of a passage for light air or heat from or across the land of another In our opinion the contentions of the learned counsel cannot be accepted
So far as the first contention is concerned we do not think that the language employed is conclusive on the issue
It only shows that both land and building were leased
Whether the land is to be treated as an appurtenant or not would depend upon the extent and nature of the land and its situation vis a vis the building thereon and not on whether the lease deed describes the subject matter as all that land and building or vice versa
Perhaps if the deed had described the demised premises as building and appurtenant land  that would have helped in ascertaining the intention of the parties but even that would not have been conclusive
On the second question we may point out that this Court had occasion to consider at length the meaning of the expression appurtenant to building  in Maharaja Singh vs State of UP There the question was whether the land on which a cattle fair was being held could be said to be appurtenant to the building situated on the land
This Court observed  PG NO 767 The heated debate at the bar on this and allied aspects need not detain us further also because of our concurrence with the second contention of the Solicitor General that the large open space cannot be regarded as appurtenant to the terraces stands and structures
What is integral is not necessarily appurtenant
A position of subordination something incidental or ancillary or dependant is implied in appurtenance
Can we say that the Iarge spaces are subsidiary or ancillary to or inevitably implies in the enjoyment of the buildings qua buildings That much of space required for the use of the structures as such has been excluded by the High Court itself
Beyond that may or may not be necessary for the hat or mela but not for the enjoyment of the chabutras as such
A hundred acres may spread out in front of a clubhouse for various games like golf
But all these abundant acres are unnecessary for not incidental to the enjoyment of the house in any reasonable manner
lt is confusion to miss the distinction fine but real
Appurtenant in relation to a dwelling or to a school college includes all land occupied therewith and used for the purposes thereof Words and Phrases Legally Defined Butterworths 2nd EDM
The word appurtenances  has a distinct and definite meaning 
Prima facie it imports nothing more than what is strictly appertaining to the subject matter of the devise or grant and which would in truth pass without being specially mentioned
Ordinarily what is necessarily for the enjoyment and has been used for the purpose of the building such as easements alone will be appurtenant
Therefore what is necessary for the enjoyment of the building is alone covered by the expression appurtenance 
If some other purpose was being fulfilled by the building and the Iands it is not possible to contend that these lands are covered by the expression appurtenances
Indeed it is settled by the earliest authority repeated without contradiction to the latest that land cannot be appurtenant to land
The word appurtenances  includes all the incorporal hereditaments attached to the land granted of demised such as rights of way of common  but it does not include lands in addition to that granted  Words and Phrases supra
PG NO 768 In short the touchstone of appurtenance  is dependence of the building on what appertains to it for its use as a building
The law thus leads to the clear conclusion that even if the buildings were used and enjoyed in the past with the whole stretch of vacant space for a hat or mela the land is not appurtenant to the principal subject granted by Section 9 viz buildings
The question therefore whether certain land is appurtenant or not is one of fact
The High Court has applied its mind to the nature of the building as well as to the terms of the lease deed
It has kept in mind that the lease relates to a period about 35 years ago a time when residential houses occupied large extents of land
There used to be a building in the middle surrounded by a vast area covered by garden arbor trees and the like
The lease also describes the building as Club Chambers with a municipal door number
The building is itself a substantial one occupying as many as two grounds
Having regard to the position pertaining at the time when the lease was executed the first appellate court and High Court came to the conclusion that the land in this case was appurtenant to the building
We see no reason to disturb this finding
On the other hand we agree that the use of the land in the circumstances of this case was incidental to the enjoyment and beneficial use of the building and therefore squarely fell within the definition which has been discussed above
It was then contended for the appellant in the alternative that the lease deed in the present case should be treated as creating two separate leases one of the building and the other of the land and that viewed in this light the appellant would be entitled to exercise rights under the Act atleast in respect of the portion of the demised premises which comprised of vacant land
To substantiate this contention Iearned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following clauses in the lease deed 1
The divisibility of the clauses in para I of the lease deed into two sets clauses b d e and g as pertaining to the land and clauses f m n
o and p as pertaining to the building 2
The stipulation of separate rents for the land and the building 3
The presence of clauses clearly envisaging and implying that the lessee could put up buildings on the vacant portions of the land and even providing that the lessee would be liable to pay taxes etc
in respect of the buildings to be so erected  4
The provision that the lessee that the sublet the demised land or building or any part or portion thereof PG NO 769 subject only to its being liable for any extra burden of municipal tax that may fall on the landlord as a consequence 5
The covenant that if during the subsistence of the lease the lessors got an offer for the purchase of the demised plot of land or the buildings or both from third parties the lessee should be given a first option to purchase at the price offered
Relying upon the above features it was contended that the lease deed does deal with the land and building separately
Separate rents were provided for the lessees were given right to put up structures and if necessary even let them out the sale or disposal of various parts of the land or the building separately was envisaged
It was therefore vehemently contended that the lease deed should be construed as consisting of two leases one in respect of the vacant land and one in respect of the building rolled into one
We are unable to accept this contention
We agree with the conclusion of the High Court that these clauses of the lease deed cannot to be construed in the manner suggested by the lessees
There are clear indications in the lease deed that it is a single lease of both the building and the vacant land
They are jointly referred to in the lease deed
There are various passages in the lease deed where it is referred to as the lease ie a single indivisible lease
The rent payable is specified as an aggregate of Rs 1250 per month and a consolidated advance of one year rent is payable under the lease deed
The lease is for a period of 21 years with an option to the lessee to renew it for the same period
The lease deed does not envisage the termination or renewal of the lease in respect of a part of the leased premises
The lease of the building alone cannot be renewed without a renewal of lease in respect of the land or vice versa
The deed contemplates the termination of lease at one point of time whereat the lessee has to surrender the possession with liberty to remove any super structures it might have put up there
The re entry clause also provides a right to re entry in respect of the demised premises as such in the event of any non payment of rent or breach of the stipulations
physically it is impossible to consider the document as comprising of two leases because the extent of land which has to go with the building as appurtenance for some part of the land atleast is clearly and necessarily appurtenant and the extent of land which can be treated as separately demised cannot be defined
No seperate lease of land can be read into the document without a proper specification and delineation of the extent of land that is to be comprised in such a separate lease
PG NO 770 The clauses on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant in our opinion do not lead to the inference suggested by the appellant
The High Court has pointed out that the rent for the property was Rs 1250 and that the bifurcation thereof into Rs900 and Rs350 had been introduced only with a limited purpose in view
The landlord wanted to protect himself against the possibility of demands of high municipaL takes being made against him as a result of the Iessees putting up structures on the land or letting out parts of the property at high rent So far as the other clauses are concerned as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents they are just the usual clauses which find a place in a lease of immovable property
They are merely permissive in nature and enable the Iessee to deal with the land during the period of demise to the best advantage without affecting the lessor s interests
There was a substantial building existing on the land
There is no material to indicate that this was not sufficient for the purposes for which the building was taken on lease by the appellant
However in case it was considered necessary to put up further structures the lease deed permits the lessee to do so subject to safeguards against higher tax and compensation and with a stipulation that this should be removed at the time of termination of the lease
So far as the clause pertaining to sale is concerned again it merely provides for a possible eventuality
The execution of a lease deed does not prevent the lessor from disposing of the property in whole or in part subject to the lessees  leasehold rights therein
The clause only provides that in case the landlord decided to exercise this right he should give a right of pre emption to the lessee
Thus all these are merely clauses which provide against the various contingencies that may occur during the period of the lease which may go up to 42 years
It is not possible to infer from these clauses that the parties had entered into two separate transactions of lease though incorporated in a single document
In our opinion this was a composite lease as we have already said of a building with appurtenant land and having regard to the definitions contained in the Act the lessee is not entitled to the rights conferred by section 3 or section 9 of the Act
Before we conclude we might refer to one more argument addressed on behalf of the appellant
Counsel submitted that the lease deed itself contains a clear indication that the parties were fully conscious that the transaction was liable to be hit by the provisions of the Act
He pointed out that when the lease deed was executed in 1951 section 12 of the Act contained a proviso which has been extracted by us earlier
That proviso saved any stipulations between the parties regarding buildings erected after the date of the contract
Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the PG NO 771 clause I j in the lease deed which by implication disentitles the lessee to payment of any compensation in respect of structures at the time of termination of the lease was specifically put in to exclude the applicability of the Act
For both parties were conscious that the Act would be applicable to the transaction and realised that if such a clause were not specifically put in the lessee would be entitled to such compensation and hence to the protection of the Act
Unfortunately learned counsel urged the proviso was dropped with retrospective effect
The result was that despite the above clause in the lease deed the lessor has become liable to pay the lessee compensation under section 3 thus conferring on the latter the correlative right of exercising an option to purchase the property under section 9
In our opinion this argument is far fetched
Whether the Act applies to the lease in question or not is something which has to be considered on the terms of the lease deed having regard to the nature of the property
On this we have already expressed our conclusion
The clause regarding removal of structures is the normal clause that occurs in leases under the Transfer of Property Act
There may have been some force in the argument at least if there had been a clause specifically stating that the lessee will not be entitled to compensation for his structures
The clause here makes no mention of compensation and only talks of the lessees  right to remove structures
Even if no such clauses had been inserted that would have been the position in law
it is not possible to infer from such a neutral clause that it was put in with a view to deny compensation to the lessee and thus get over the hurdle of the assessee putting in a claim for acquiring the property by purchase
lt is clear that the lease deed between the parties is a simple lease deed containing the usual clauses and covenants that one expects in it and nothig more
lf indeed the parties had been conscious of the possibility of the lessee claiming any rights under the Act the lessors would have tried to safeguard themselves by making it clear that what was being let out was only a building and appurtenant land
We therefore do not think that there is much force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
As the view we have taken is entirely based on a construction of the lease deed before us we do not consider it necessary to refer to the various decisions discussed by the High Court in its judgment
In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed
The respondents will be entitled to their costs
SL Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants were awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer compensation ranging from Rs1320 to 4000 per acre depending upon the nature of the land acquired in 1977
The District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs85000 per acre on the ground that compensation  Rs85000 per acre under Award exhibit A4 and Rs70000 under Award exhibit A5 had already been awarded in respect of acquisition of certain other similar lands situated in Karimnagar
However the High Court in appeal remanded the matter for fresh disposal and also observed that the District Judge should exclude exhibit A4 and exhibit A 5 from consideration as the land concerned in those awards are not comparable lands
In appeals to this Court by Special Leave it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the matter should not be remanded to the District Judge since the claimants being small holders and agriculturists are hard pressed and unable to fight another round of litigation and that they are prepared to accept any compensation which this Court may think fit to award
Allowing the appeals HELD 1 The Judgments of the High Court and the District Judge e are set aside
The compensation at the rate of Rs25000 per acre regardless of categorisation would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice
It is needless to state that the claimants are entitled to mandatory solatium at 30 and also statutory interest
857G H 2i It is of utmost importance that the award should be made without delay
The enhanced compensation must be determined without 108s of time
857C PG NO 853 PG NO 854 2ii The appellate power of remand at any rate ought not to be exercised lightly
It shall not be resorted to unless the award is wholly unintelligible
It shall not be exercised unless there is total lack of evidence
If remand is imperative and if the claim for enhanced compensation is tenable it would be proper for the appellate court to do modest best to mitigate hardships
The appellate court may direct some interim payment to claimants subject to adjustment in the eventual award
857C D 3
This is not a case of no evidence
This is a case of both relevant and irrelevant evidence mixed up together
Therefore irrelevant and exaggerated claim must be excluded
857F In the instant case the location of lands will have to be borne in mind while ascertaining the market value
The Commissioner has stated that the lands are more suitable for house sites than for agriculture
There is no reason to discard this evidence and reject exhibit A 5 altogether
856C D