JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, in a Reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under the law, the appeal is in the nature of a second appeal as contemplated by sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the Appellant, Bhutan Chandra Samanta, was allowed compensation to the extent of Rs. 700, for plants in a nursery, comprised in certain premises acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. It is apparent from the Collector's note stating grounds for making the award, that the amount of Rs. 700 was awarded on account of damages sustained by the claimant by reason of the taking possession of the plants in the nursery. The Reference under sec. 18 related to a' claim of Rs. 2920-6-0 for value of plants, as mentioned in the application for reference filed before the Collector on the 27th of January, 1931, 2. The learned President in his judgment, with which the Assessors ex-pressed agreement, considered the questions of law arising in the case, upon the provision contained in sec. 23 (1), secondly of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector having admittedly awarded compensation to the Appellant to the extent of Rs. 700, as value of the plants at the time of taking possession of the acquired premises. These questions of law were formulated by the President in the manner following:-- What is the meaning and significance of sec. 23 sub-sec. 1, secondly.-- Why has it been inserted in this section? If crops and trees are 'land', then why bas provision been made separately for the awarding of compensation for such objects? What was the intention of the legislature in the matter? 3. It may be stated at the outset that the provisions contained in sec. 17 or sec. 24 of the Land Acquisition Act are not of any assistance in answering the questions propounded by the learned President in the manner mentioned above; nor do the decisions in the cases referred to in the judgment of the President [The Sub-Collector of Godavari v. Seragam Subbarayadu ILR 30 Mad. 151 (1906) and The Collector of Bareilly v. Sultan Ahmad Khan ILR 48 All. 498 (1926)] throw any light on the subject under consideration. The questions propounded must be answered on the interpretation of the provisions of sec. 151 (1906) and The Collector of Bareilly v. Sultan Ahmad Khan ILR 48 All. 498 (1926)] throw any light on the subject under consideration. The questions propounded must be answered on the interpretation of the provisions of sec. 23 (1) secondly, as they stand, applying the rules of interpretation applicable to the case. The market value of the land including the plants in the nursery in question, at the date of the publication of the declaration under sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, had to be paid under sec. 23 (1), first. In the case before us, the Collector awarded compensation separately for the plants, not under sec. 23 (1), first, but under sec. 23 (1), secondly. It may be noticed here that the procedure adopted by the Collector was irregular to the extent that sec. 23 (1), secondly, could not have any application to plants which were in the premises acquired at the date of the publication of declaration; the two different things contemplated by sec. 23 (1), first, and sec. 23 (1), secondly were taken together, and one amount of compensation by way of damages and not any market value under sec. 23 (1), first, awarded by the Collector for plants existing at the time of taking possession of the premises acquired. In interpreting the provisions contained in sec. 23 (1) secondly, we have primarily to go upon the language used, to examine the same, and to find out its meaning. As it has been said, considerations derived from the previous state of the law should not generally influence Courts in the matter of interpretation of a particular provision of law and starting with an enquiry how the law stood previously would not be justifiable in all cases; but if the meaning of the statutory provision is doubtful, resort may be had to the previous state of the law, for the purpose of aiding the construction of the same. [See Bank of England v. Vagliono Brothers [1891] A. C. 107 and Norendra Nath Sarkar v. Kamalbasani Dasi L.R. 23 IndAp 18: S.C. I. L. R 23 Cal 563 (1896)]. In this connection the policy which dictated the statutory provision may have to be taken into account. [See Bank of England v. Vagliono Brothers [1891] A. C. 107 and Norendra Nath Sarkar v. Kamalbasani Dasi L.R. 23 IndAp 18: S.C. I. L. R 23 Cal 563 (1896)]. In this connection the policy which dictated the statutory provision may have to be taken into account. Keeping in view the above rules of interpretation which may be taken to be of general application, it has to be noted in the first place that the policy and the intention of the Legislature to provide for the payment of the full value and reimbursement to the party whose property was acquired, have to be given effect to. By the previous enactment, Act X of 1870. market value of the property acquired at the time of the award made by the Collector had to be given; under the present law, Act I of 1894, market value at the time of the declaration has to be awarded. To give full effect to the policy of the law, the change made in the previous law required the addition of a provision like the one contained in sec. 23 (1) secondly, bringing under consideration in addition to the market value, as mentioned in sec. 23 (1) first, any diminution of the profits of occupation during the period between the declaration and the Collector's entry into possession, as also the value of any standing crops or trees that may be on the land when the Collector takes possession. The intention of the Legislature in this behalf has been expressed in the manner mentioned in sec. 23 (1), secondly; and the questions pro-pounded by the President of the Tribunal in his judgment have to be answered in the manner mentioned above. In our judgment, therefore, there is no question that the Collector's award, allowing compensation for plants in the nursery in question at the time of his taking possession was in accordance with the provisions of sec. 23 (1) secondly. As it has been indicated already, the Collector did not take into account the market value of the plants till the date of publication separately, as he was required to do under sec. 23 (1), first; but in view of the position that the claimant has not, in the appeal before us, claimed statutory allowance for any part of his claim, it is not necessary to differentiate one part of the claim for compensation under sec. 23 (1), first; but in view of the position that the claimant has not, in the appeal before us, claimed statutory allowance for any part of his claim, it is not necessary to differentiate one part of the claim for compensation under sec. 23 (1) first, and another under sec. 23 (1) secondly. The entire amount of Rs. 700 has been awarded by the Collector as damages as provided by sec. 23 (1) secondly, and the case has proceeded before us on that footing; the price of the plants in the nursery being taken to be the measure of damages under the above position of the law. 4. On the decision arrived at on the questions of law arising for consideration in the case, the Appellant was entitled to get damages under sec. 23 (1) secondly. The question of amount of damages was raised before the Improvement Tribunal, but was not gone into, in view of the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the Collector's award for Rs. 700 was not justifiable under the law. In accordance with our decision on the questions of law referred to above, the question of the amount of damages has to be considered on the evidence on the record. It was open to us to send the case back to the Improvement Tribunal with a direction that a decision on the question of amount of damages to which the claimant Appellant laid claim in his application for reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, is required to be given. To obviate a remand entailing unnecessary delay and expenditure, we have followed the procedure prescribed by sec. 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and examined the evidence in the case, hearing upon the case of the Appellant before us, that the amount of Rs. 2,920-6-0 should have been awarded to him as compensation for plants in the nursery, at the time of taking possession by the Collector. The burden of proving that the award of the Collector was inadequate was on the Appellant, and he led evidence in support of his claim. There was no evidence by way of rebuttal of the evidence adduced on the side of the claimant hearing upon the proper valuation of plants in the nursery. The burden of proving that the award of the Collector was inadequate was on the Appellant, and he led evidence in support of his claim. There was no evidence by way of rebuttal of the evidence adduced on the side of the claimant hearing upon the proper valuation of plants in the nursery. The evidence as it stands, coming from the side of the Appellant is not very definite or conclusive in nature; but the evidence establishes the position that the plants were under-valued by the Collector in fixing the amount of damages payable to the Appellant under sec. 23 (1) secondly. The evidence given by the witness Jamini Mohan Banerji appears to us to be reliable, so far as it goes; and acting upon the same, the amount awarded by the Collector has to be increased by at least Rs. 1100. The total amount of damages to which the Appellant is entitled for plants in the nursery is fixed at Rs. 1,800, in supersession of the Collector's award, fixing the amount at Rs. 700. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The decision of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal against which this appeal is directed is set aside and the Reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is allowed, the Collector's award dated the 18th December, 1930, being increased in the manner mentioned above. The parties are to bear their own costs throughout.