JUDGMENT 1. This was an appeal in a land acquisition case. The matter arose out of a reference made by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. There is no question between the parties as regards the area taken up, nor as regards the amount of compensation allowable ; but the dispute between them is as regards two matters, first, as to abatement of rent, and second, as to the proportion of compensation which each party ought to receive. 2. The Appellant before us is the putnidar, and the Respondent is the zemindar of the property, a portion of which has been acquired by Government for public purposes. 3. The District Judge, though in his judgment he expressed the opinion that the putnidar was entitled to abatement of rent, did not in his decree allow him (the putnidar) such abatement; and while he declared in his decree that the order of the "lower Court," meaning thereby the Collector, as regards compensation should be affirmed, in his judgment he held that the entire compensation allowed by Government ought to be given to the reminder. 4. Naturally, both parties are dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Court below. The Appellant insists that he is entitled, not only to abatement of rent in respect of the land taken up by Government, but also to some portion of the compensation that has been allowed, while the zemindar, the Respondent, contends that, though the putnidar is entitled to abatement of rent, yet he is not entitled to any share of the compensation money. First, as regards the abatement, there can be no doubt that the land having been taken up by Government and thus absolutely lost to the putnidar, the latter is entitled to abatement of rent at the hands of the zemindar. Then again he is, in our opinion, entitled to some share of the compensation money, whatever that share may be, for the loss of profit in respect of the land which has been acquired by Government. 5. Then again he is, in our opinion, entitled to some share of the compensation money, whatever that share may be, for the loss of profit in respect of the land which has been acquired by Government. 5. In the well-known case of the Burdwan Raj S. D. A. for 1860, p. 336, the rule of proportion as to abatement of rent was thus laid down--"As the gross rental of the whole putni is to the gross rent of the land proposed to be taken, so will the entire putni rent be to the particular portion of the rent to be remitted." In the present case we find that the gross rental of the property is Rs. 2,100, the gross rental of the land taken up, Rs. 135, and the rent of the entire property Rs. 1,801, so that according to the rule of proportion laid down in the case just referred to, the amount of abatement of rent which the putnidar would be entitled to receive is Rs. 115 a year. 6. Then as regards the amount of compensation the rule is thus laid down--"As the gross profit of the putni is to the profits of the putnidar, so will the gross compensation be to the portion of the compensation the putnidar is entitled to recover." We find upon the evidence that the gross profit of the putni is Rs. 2,100, the gross profit of the putnidar, Rs. 89, and the gross compensation allowed, Rs. 2,781. So, according to the rule just quoted, the amount of compensation which the putnidar would be entitled to receive is Rs. 118. 7. But this latter rule has not been strictly followed in this Court in other cases, noteably in the case of Shama Prosunno Bose Mojumdar v. Brakoda Sundari Dasi I. L. R. 28 Cal. 146 (1900), in which Sir Francis Maclean, the Chief Justice, seems to have held that the zemindar is entitled, in the event of remission of rent being allowed to the putnidar, to the capitalized value of such remission at so many years' purchase, and he is further entitled to the capitalized value of the possible chance of the property reverting into his hands by reason of sale or otherwise but that the rest of the compensation money ought to be given to the putnidar. According to this principle, the zemindar would be entitled to, say, 20 years' purchase upon Rs. 115, the amount of remission to be allowed, or Rs. 2,300, and he would be entitled to something as the capitalized value of the possible chance of the property reverting into his hands; and if this last mentioned capitalized value be taken into account, he would be entitled to receive something like Rs. 2,550, and that the rest, that is to say, Rs. 181, would go into the hands of the putnidar. 8. Having regard to the principle or principles underlying these cases, we think, in the circumstances of this case, the correct order to make would be to allow the putnidar Rs. 200 as his share of the compensation in addition to the remission of Rs. 115 per year of rent in respect of the land taken up. 9. The judgment and decree of the Court below will accordingly be modified, each party in the circumstances bearing his own costs. As regards the costs of Government who were made parties to this appeal, and we think rather unnecessarily, the Appellant ought to pay such costs, which we assess at two gold mohurs.