JUDGMENT 1. The subject-matter of this appeal is premises No. 70, Nimtola Ghat Street. That property has been acquired by the Province of Bengal on behalf of the Board of Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta. The declaration for the acquisition was published on the 16th January, 1936 and the award was made on the 24th September, 1936. The property is bounded on the north by Kundu Choudhury Lane, on the south by Nimtolla Ghat Street which is about 60 feet wide there, on the east by premises No. 69/2, Nimtola Ghat Street and on the west by premises No. 70/1, Nimtola Ghat Street. The area is 15 cottas 7 chittacks 8 Sq. ft. The frontage on Nimtola Ghat Street as also on Kundu Choudhury Lane is about 54 feet. The depth is about 200 ft. It is a bustee covered with huts. Some of them are mud kotas, that is to say, two-storied structures and some ordinary huts, namely one-storied structures. There is very little open space in the bustee; only a narrow lane about 3 ft. wide runs across the land on the western part. That is the only means of access to the huts which are inside the bustee. The huts are in the occupation of monthly tenants. They pay ground rent the structures belonging to them. The Collector valued the land at Rs. 56,750 which works out at about Rs. 3,700 per cottah. At the time of the acquisition, the owners were Gouri Charan Law and Mr. Uma Charan Law. Just before the award, Gouri Charan Law died and Uma Charan Law is the executor of the estate left by Gouri Charan Law. Mr. Uma Charan Law made a reference. The Tribunal has increased the market value of the land to Rs. 94,000, that is to say, it works out at the flat rate of about Rs. 6,000 a cottah. The Tribunal proceeded to assess the market-value on rental basis. It took Rs. 24 per cottah per month as the average ground rent. The security was taken at 4 1/2 per cent. and the annual rent was accordingly capitalised at a little over 22 years' purchase. The figure of Rs. 94,000 was checked by the Tribunal with reference to the sale value of premises No. 2412, Nimtola Ghat Street which is on the other side of the street and very near to the acquired plot. and the annual rent was accordingly capitalised at a little over 22 years' purchase. The figure of Rs. 94,000 was checked by the Tribunal with reference to the sale value of premises No. 2412, Nimtola Ghat Street which is on the other side of the street and very near to the acquired plot. On the evidence of Mr. Barber, the Tribunal took Rs. 7,635 as the price per cottah of premises No. 2012, Nimtola Ghat Street. Against the decree of the Tribunal the Province of Bengal has preferred this appeal. The appeal involves a question of principle and that question has been argued before us by Mr. Chatterjee at some length. Mr. Chatterjee contends that the phrase, "market-value of the land," occurring in sec. 23 (1) (i) of the Land Acquisition Act means the same thing as the phrase, " value to the owner," used in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of England. Starting on the aforesaid premises, Mr. Chatterjee contends that the market-value of the land in question must be taken to be the capitalised value of the rent which the owner was actually receiving at the date of the declaration. That is his first proposition. Proceeding upon that basis, he says that the evidence shows that the owner was actually receiving at the time of the declaration a net monthly sum of Rs. 356 per month, that is, about Rs. 4,272 annually. That amount must be capitalised, and as the evidence that the security must be taken at 4 1/2 is onesided, that rent must be capitalised at a little over 22 years' purchase. That gives the figure at about Rs. 94,100. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 94,000 as the market-value of the land, he says that that award of the Tribunal should not be disturbed. It is necessary to examine the argument. 2. On the point of actual receipts by the owners at the time of the declaration, the evidence consists of the oral evidence of Mr. Uma Charan Law supported by the counterfoil rent receipts as contained in his bill-book (Exts. 1 and 2). In his oral evidence, he gives the details of his collection from his several tenants from January, 1935 to December, 1935. Uma Charan Law supported by the counterfoil rent receipts as contained in his bill-book (Exts. 1 and 2). In his oral evidence, he gives the details of his collection from his several tenants from January, 1935 to December, 1935. The front portion, that is to say, the portion which abuts on Nimtola Ghat Street, was in the occupation of one Durlov Chandra Ghose and its area was 1 1/2 cottahs of land. According to Mr. Law, Durlov was paying Rs. 100 a month as ground rent. He gives the names of the other tenants who were in occupation of other portions of the land and the amounts that they were paying to him. The total comes to Rs. 376 per month. He says that he had to incur a sum of Rs. 20 monthly as collection charges, that being the pay of his collecting durwan. The net amount he was receiving according to his evidence was Rs. 356 a month. His counter-foils (Exts. 1 and 2) corroborate his evidence. The position, therefore, is that unless it can be proved that the counter-foils that he had produced had been fabricated for this case, his oral evidence cannot be discarded. It is unnecessary to deal with this part of his evidence as also with the counter-foils (Exts. 1 and 2) in detail in the view that we are taking. 3. Mr. Panchanon Ghose who has appeared for the Province of Bengal has pointed out to us certain suspicious circumstances about the bill-books but we cannot rest our judgment on suspicion. Some of these counterfoil bills are in the hand-writing of Gouri Charan Law. He died before the award was made. It cannot be, therefore, said on the evidence as it stands that these counterfoils had been manufactured for the purpose of this case. On the evidence as it stands, we hold that Mr. Law was actually receiving a net sum of Rs. 356 per month as ground rent from the tenants. 4. The question of law raised by Mr. Chatterjee and which we have indicated above, (therefore, has to be decided. We may say at once that there is good authority for the proposition that the phrase "market-value" as used in sec. 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act means the same thing as the phrase, " value to the owner," used in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of England. We may say at once that there is good authority for the proposition that the phrase "market-value" as used in sec. 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act means the same thing as the phrase, " value to the owner," used in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of England. After all, the Act requires compensation to be paid to the owner on the compulsory acquisition of his land. The value of the land to the owner therefore, must be the basis for the determination of the compensation. But the standard must be not a subjective standard but an objective one. Ordinarily, the objective standard would be, as has been observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in the case of Kailas Chandra Mitra v. Secretary of State for India in Council 17 C. L. J. 34 (1910), the price that an owner willing and not obliged to sell might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser with whom he was bargaining for the sale of the property. In the case of compulsory acquisition, the property must be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration but its potential value must be taken into consideration. That is a well-settled principle and in the case of Fraser v. City of Fraserville [1917] A. C 187, the principle on which the potential value is to be assessed is discussed and explained. That was a case where a Municipality expropriated the falls of a river and its adjacent lands with a view to use the water-power for the purpose of producing electricity. Before the notice to treat the Municipality had acquired interest in other lands adjoining the river and in certain parts of the river. The owners did not accept the compensation offered by the Municipality with the result that in accordance with the Act in force in Quebec the matter was referred to arbitrators. The arbitrators by a majority awarded a large sum of money to the owners. Two proceedings were started, one by the owners to enforce the award and the other by the Municipality to set aside the award. The suit of the Municipality succeeded on the documentary evidence which was produced by one of the arbitrators, which gave the details of the valuation. Two proceedings were started, one by the owners to enforce the award and the other by the Municipality to set aside the award. The suit of the Municipality succeeded on the documentary evidence which was produced by one of the arbitrators, which gave the details of the valuation. Their Lordships of the Privy Council held that in assessing the amount of compensation, the majority of the arbitrators based their estimate upon the value to the buyer and not the value to the seller that is to say, took into account the fact that the Municipality had already been utilising portions of the river for the purpose of producing electricity. That fact was taken into consideration by the arbitrators in coming to the finding that the property of which notice to treat was given had a potential value which they estimated on the basis that the property could be used for producing electricity. This was pointed out to be a wrong basis and in dealing with this question, Lord Buckmaster made the following observations: The principles which regulate the fixing of compensation of lands compulsory acquired have been the subject of many decisions and among the most recent are those of In [re: Lucas and Chesterfield Gas and Water Board [1909] K. B. 16, Cedars Rapids Manufacturing & Power Co. v. Lacoste [1914] A. C. 569 and Sidney v. North Eastern Ry Co. [1914] 3 K. B. 629. The principles of those cases are carefully and correctly considered in the judgment, the subject of appeal, and the substance of them is this : that the value to be ascertained is the value to the seller of the property in its actual condition at the time of the expropriation with all its advantages and with all its possibilities, excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsory acquired, the question of what is the scheme being the question of fact for the arbitrator in each case. 5. Those are the fundamental principles on which the value to the owner is to be Calculated. The value to the owner may also be determined by capitalising the rent. 5. Those are the fundamental principles on which the value to the owner is to be Calculated. The value to the owner may also be determined by capitalising the rent. The amount of the annual rent which is to be capitalised may be taken to be what the owner was actually receiving at the relevant point of time, or it may be taken to be at a figure other than the figure that the owner was actually receiving at the relevant time which the Court may consider fair. This is what we understand to be the law. But Mr. Chatterjee's contention goes further. He says that the loss to the owner must be made good and, therefore, where the owner is enjoying his property by letting it out and was actually receiving rent at the relevant point of time, (in this case the date of the publication of the declaration) the amount of rent he was receiving and no other amount must be taken as the starting figure and that amount capitalised. For the purpose of supporting his contention, he has relied upon the case of Swarna Manjury Dassi v. Secretary of State for India I. L. R. 55 Cal. 994: S. C. 32 C. W. N. 421 (1927). That case does not however, support him. In fact, when analysed correctly, it goes against his contention. It is therefore necessary to examine the facts of that case for the purpose of following the observation of B. B. Ghose, J., at pages 1000 and 1001 of the above case on which Mr. Chatterjee has placed reliance. The premises which was acquired belonged to Swarna Manjuri, the claimant, as administratrix to the estate of Brajalal Seal. Shortly before the publication of the declaration under the Land Acquisition Act she had granted a lease of the said premises to one B. N. Elias for a period of 99 years. By the terms of the lease, Elias was to pay a net monthly ground rent of Rs. 2,000 to the owner. He was to put up a building on the lease-hold premises at a cost of not less than a lac of rupees. On the expiry of the lease, that building was to come to the lessor. Under the terms of the lease, Elias had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the owner. He was to put up a building on the lease-hold premises at a cost of not less than a lac of rupees. On the expiry of the lease, that building was to come to the lessor. Under the terms of the lease, Elias had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 in the joint names of himself and of the lessor as security for the due performance of the terms of the lease. Elias in terms of the lease started building operations but after he had proceeded for a time, the declaration under the Land Acquisition Act was published. Thereupon, he abandoned the building operations. The Collector valued the land at the rate of Rs. 6,200 per cotta. On that basis, he awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,14,000 to the owner. There was a reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The Tribunal raised the award to Rs. 3,31,000 odd. The contention before the President was that the owner should be granted compensation of Rs. 4,80,000 which represented the capitalised value of the rent. (Rs. 24,000) at 20 years' purchase, which she was actually receiving on the basis of the 99 years' lease. For the purpose of supporting her claim, the lease was made an exhibit. The learned President of the Tribunal ignored the lease, and in dealing with the contention said that the lease had to be ignored on the ground that it must be taken to have been surrendered as soon as the lands were acquired. The owner preferred an appeal to this Court and on her behalf the position she had taken before the President of the Tribunal in regard to the lease was sought to be maintained. The matter was argued fully, on her behalf by Sir Binod Mitter and by Mr. Langford James on behalf of the Government. In dealing with the respective contentions of the learned Advocates, B. B. Ghose, J., made the following observation: It is further contended on behalf of the Appellant that the learned President has fallen into another error in arriving at the valuation, as he takes into account only the fact as to what a purchaser would pay for the property at the time of the acquisition and not what the loss to the seller would be at that point of time. 6. 6. It is on the last-mentioned passage, namely, that loss to the seller has to be taken into account on which Mr. Chatterjee has placed reliance. That sentence taken by itself may lend support to Mr. Chatterjee's argument but the learned Judge proceeds further in the following manner: Mr. Langford James who appears for the Secretary of State has conceded and very rightly, that the President is wrong so far as he states that the lease should be taken into consideration; but he contends that the lease is not the only factor which should be taken into consideration. There cannot be any dispute as regards that proposition. 7. The order which was actually made in that case was that the amount of the rent reserved in the lease would not be the sole factor for the determination of the amount of the compensation to be paid to the owner for the loss of his land. In another part of the judgment, B. B. Ghose, J., accepted the contention of Mr. Langford James that the continuity of the payment of the fixed sum of Rs. 2,000 a month for the rest of the lease which was, as we have already said, for a period of 99 years would depend upon the continuity of the solvency of the lessee. On that contention of Mr. Langford James being accepted, the Court did not value the owner's interest in the property at the capitalised value of the rent of Rs. 24,000 a year but remanded the case to the lower Court with an observation that in arriving at the market-value of the property, the President was to take the lease into consideration as well as other evidence in the case. The facts of that case are stronger than the facts of the present case. There was a written lease which obliged the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 24,000 a year for a period of 99 years. The security for the rent was quite ample, for not only Rs. 50,000 was deposited in a Bank, but substantial buildings worth at least Rs. 1,00,000 were to be constructed by the lessee. In this case, we have only monthly bustee tenants. There is no binding obligation on the tenants to pay the sum of Rs. 376 a month for any definite period and the only security is the security of the huts. 8. 1,00,000 were to be constructed by the lessee. In this case, we have only monthly bustee tenants. There is no binding obligation on the tenants to pay the sum of Rs. 376 a month for any definite period and the only security is the security of the huts. 8. The cases of Penny v. Penny (7) and of Earl of Eldon v. N. E. Ry. Co. (8), clearly bring out the principle where the market-value is to be determined by capitalising the rent. Those cases lay down the proposition that if the land is likely to continue to produce the same rent which is being paid for it, that rent does offer the basis on which the value is to be calculated. It is necessary that one should be certain that that rent is likely to continue undiminished. In the case of a lease for a long term there is some certainty that the same rent would be paid. But even as B. B. Ghose, J., observed in Swarna Monjuri's case I. L. R. 55 Cal 994: S. c. 32 C. W. N. 421 (1927), there is some uncertainty because the continuity of the payment of rent at the rent reserved in the lease would depend upon the continuity of the solvency of the lessee. On these principles we can proceed on the basis of the actuals, that is to say, what was being received, namely, Rs. 376, at the date of the declaration only if we could be certain that that amount was stable rent. It may be taken in the circumstances appearing in the case to be stable rent only if it represented a fair local rate at the time. If it was fancy rent which was much above the rate of rent prevalent in the locality it would be unstable rent and should not be taken into consideration in calculating the market-value according to the principles which have been laid down in the cases to which we have referred, namely, the case of Penny v. Penny [1867] L. R. 5 Eq. 227 and the case of Earl of Eldon v. N. E. Ry. Co. [1899] 80 L. T. (N. S.) 723. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the rate of rent prevailing in the locality supports the rent which was being actually realised by the owner at the date of the declaration for considering whether Rs. 227 and the case of Earl of Eldon v. N. E. Ry. Co. [1899] 80 L. T. (N. S.) 723. It is, therefore, necessary to see whether the rate of rent prevailing in the locality supports the rent which was being actually realised by the owner at the date of the declaration for considering whether Rs. 376 a month is stable rent. 9. On behalf of the claimant, evidence has been given with regard to the rent which was being paid for premises No. 24, Nimtola Ghat Street, which is just opposite the land acquired, the rent which was being paid by the tenant of premises No. 73, Nimtola Ghat Street and the rent that was being paid by the several tenants who are occupying premises No. 7011, Nimtola Ghat Street. On the side of the Province of Bengal, there is evidence with regard to the rents which were being paid for premises No. 22, Nimtola Ghat Street, which is almost opposite premises No. 70, Nimtola Ghat Street and which is on the other side of Baisnab Charan Street and faces premises No. 24, Nimtola Ghat Street, the two premises, namely, Nos. 22 and 24 being at the junction of Nimtola Ghat Street and Baisnab Charan Street but on two sides of the last-mentioned street. For the purpose of comparison, we first take the lease of the acquired premises No. 70, Nimtola Ghat Street which abuts on Nimtola Ghat Street. That portion was occupied by two tenants, namely, Durlov Chandra Ghose who was in occupation of 1 1/2 cottas of land and Mati Dassi who occupied 3/4 the of a cottas abutting on Nimtola Ghat Street and occupied a further area of about a cottah which was at the back of the portion occupied by Durlov Chandra Ghose. The rate for the ground rent of the front land which abutted on Nimtola Ghat Street which Durlov and Mati Dassi were paying would be about Rs. 60 to Rs. 66 per cottah. Mr. Barber stated that he made enquiries of the tenant Lachmi Narayan who was occupying premises No. 24, Nimtola Ghat Street. He said that the area in the occupation of that tenant who occupied the room and the verandah was just a little less than a cottah and that tenant was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 88 a month. But Mr. He said that the area in the occupation of that tenant who occupied the room and the verandah was just a little less than a cottah and that tenant was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 88 a month. But Mr. Barber had to admit that the room and the verandah were pucca structures. What the tenant Lachmi Narayan was, therefore, paying was not the ground rent but the rent for the land as well as of the pucca room and the verandah in which he was holding his shop. This evidence shows what desperate attempts had to be made by the claimant for the purpose of sustaining as fair the ground rent of lands in the occupation of Durlov and Mati Dassi which abutted on Nimtola Ghat Street. If a tenant was paying rent of Rs. 88 per month for the rent of pucca houses standing on an area of about a cottah of land with two good frontages, surely the ground rent of a cottah of land would very much below that figure. 10. With regard to premises No. 73, Nimtola Ghat Street, the evidence of Mr. Barber is as follows: That there was a tenant occupying No. 73/3, Nimtola Ghat Street and his name was Bhurikmull. He was in occupation of three shops and was paying a rent of Rs. 70 per month. He does not give the precise ground-area. But we may take it as the lease-hold premises in the occupation of Bhurikmull consisted of only three shop rooms the area would not be more than a cottah, may be a little less than one cotta. The officer of the landlord of that premises was examined on behalf of the Province of Bengal. His name is Abani Kumar Mitter. He said that the landlord was realising Rs. 22 only from premises No. 73/3, Nimtola Ghat Street. No. 7313, Nimtola Ghat Street is a plot of land for inside Mathur Sen Garden Lane. It is probable that Mr. Barber committed a mistake as to the number. It appears from the evidence of Abani Kumar Mitter that premises Nos. 73, 73/1, 73/1/1, 73/2 and 73/3 belonged to his master. The survey plan shows that No. 73 is a pucca building abutting on Nimtola Ghat Street. We may take it, therefore, that Mr. It is probable that Mr. Barber committed a mistake as to the number. It appears from the evidence of Abani Kumar Mitter that premises Nos. 73, 73/1, 73/1/1, 73/2 and 73/3 belonged to his master. The survey plan shows that No. 73 is a pucca building abutting on Nimtola Ghat Street. We may take it, therefore, that Mr. Barber when he said that Bhurikmull was occupying three shops of No. 73/3, Nimtola Ghat Street, really meant that Bhurikmull was occupying the pucca shops which had been numbered as 73 and not 73/3. If that be so, that transaction also is not relevant on the question of the ground rent, for Bhurikmull was paying rent not only for the land but also for the pucca structures which belonged to the landlord. 11. With regard to the tenants of premises No. 70/1, Nimtola Ghat Street, the premises which adjoins the acquired land, we have a sketch plan, Ex. 11, prepared in the office of Mr. Barber. That shows that on the front portion which abuts on Nimtola Ghat Street, there were two tenants, Raju Bala and Giri Bala. Raju Bala was to the immediate west of Mati Dassi who was occupying a portion of the front belt of premises No. 70 and Giri Bala was next to her. Her land had two frontages, the main frontage was on Nimtola Ghat Street and the other frontage was on Kundu Choudhury Lane. The evidence which comes from the owner is that at the date of the declaration, Raju Bala was paying for 1.892 cottas of land Rs. 65 as rent and taxes and Giri Bala who was occupying 1.6 cottahs of land was paying Rs. 120 a month inclusive of taxes. Raju Bala's land is similar to the front and lands in the occupation of Mati Dassi and the land of Durlov Chandra Ghose. Giri Bala's land was better, for it had two frontages. As we do not know what amount of taxes was included in the rent which Raju Bala was paying but making some allowance for it the ground rent she was paying would come to about Rs. 32 per cottah. That would be less than half the rate at which Mati Dassi and Durlov were paying. As we do not know what amount of taxes was included in the rent which Raju Bala was paying but making some allowance for it the ground rent she was paying would come to about Rs. 32 per cottah. That would be less than half the rate at which Mati Dassi and Durlov were paying. This evidence conclusively, shows that the rents which the owner was actually receiving from his tenants were far above what other tenants were paying as ground rents for properties belonging to others which were similarly situate as the acquired land. This evidence by itself would show that the rents the owners of the acquired land were receiving were fancy rents and that introduces an element of great un-stability. 12. With regard to the evidence led on behalf of the Government, the position stands thus: Premises Nos. 22, Nimtola Ghat Street was a corner plot with Nimtola Ghat Street on its north and Baisnab Charan Street, an important street, which lends to Burra Bazar and goes up to Harrison Road. The owners of this property were Satish Chandra Chowdhury and his co-sharers. An officer of theirs has been examined. He says that the land was occupied by two tenants. Ajodhya Ram occupied two cottahs of land which abutted on Nimtola Ghat Street, that is to say, his land had two frontages, one on the Nimtola Ghat Sreet and the other on Baisnab Charan Set Street. He was paying Rs. 50 as ground rent per month. It works out at the rate of Rs. 25 per cottah. The other portion which was a little more than a cottah and which had one frontage on Baisnab Charan Set Street was in the occupation of Sindhubala Debi and she was paying as ground rent Rs. 25 per month. The land in the occupation of Ajodhya Ram from the point of view of tenants was better than the front land which was occupied by Mati Dassi and the land which was occupied by Durlov but his ground rent was at the rate of Rs. 25 per cottah. 13. In view of the evidence which we have summarised above, we do not consider it necessary to deal in detail with the ground rents which were being received from the tenants of premises No. 70, Nimtola Ghat Street. The Tribinal did not deal with the evidence in detail. 25 per cottah. 13. In view of the evidence which we have summarised above, we do not consider it necessary to deal in detail with the ground rents which were being received from the tenants of premises No. 70, Nimtola Ghat Street. The Tribinal did not deal with the evidence in detail. It took into consideration only the rate of ground rent which was being paid by the tenants of No. 22, Nimtola Ghat Street. On that basis it took the flat rate of Rs. 24 per cottah as the ground rent of the whole of the acquired land. On the face of it, and that method is fallacious, for if the ground rent of sites of small sizes abutting on Nimtolla Ghat Street such as of No. 22 be Rs. 25 a cotta, the ground rent of sites in the interior of premises No. 70 which is a narrow and deep plot would not be anything like that figure. In fact, the Province of Bengal have led credible evidence with regard to the ground rent of sites in Gour Laha Street and Mathur Sen Garden Lane. Those plots did not abut on Nimtola Ghat Street but they are at a short distances from Nimlota Ghat Street and are no public streets of appreciable width. The interior sites of No. 70 has an approach lane of only 3 ft. wide. Those sites of Gour Laha Street and Mathur Sen Garden Lane are much better than the interior sites of No. 70. The ground rent of those sites in Mathur Sen Garden Lane and Gour Laha Street works at the rate of about Rs. 8 or Rs. 9 a cottah. 14. For the determination of the market-value, we are left to the only other alternative method, namely, to take as our guide the sales of different plots of land. The key plan, Ex. D, depicts those plots. On behalf of the claimants reliance has been placed upon the sale of No. 20/3, Nimtola Ghat Street and on behalf of the Province of Bengal upon the sales of premises Nos. 58, 30, 19, 14/3, Nimtola Ghat Street and the award for No. 72. No. 20/3, Nimtola Ghat Street was sold on the 12th March, 1920, by the conveyance, Ex. 46. The conveyance shows that the area of land was by estimation 9 or 10 cottas with a building on it. 58, 30, 19, 14/3, Nimtola Ghat Street and the award for No. 72. No. 20/3, Nimtola Ghat Street was sold on the 12th March, 1920, by the conveyance, Ex. 46. The conveyance shows that the area of land was by estimation 9 or 10 cottas with a building on it. The price was a lac of rupees. There is some evidence as to what is to be taken as the value of the structures in 1920, i.e., at the date of the sale. On that point, Mr. Barber has given evidence. He says that the prime cost in 1920 can be taken at Rs. 40,027. He allowed a depreciation of 40 per cent, to find the value of the building as it was in 1920. According to him, therefore, the value of the building in 1920 was Rs. 24,000. Deducting the said sum from the total consideration of a lac of rupees the value of the lands was according to him Rs. 76,000 in 1920. In his evidence, he admits that for the bad shape of the land he deducted 10 per cent. That gave him a figure of Rs. 10,893 per cottah as the price of that land in 1920. In his cross-examination, he admitted that at that time there was a boom in Calcutta and at the time of the conveyance the peak had been reached. We cannot take this sale as a safe guide for the following reasons: (1) It is too much remote in point of time, for it is a conveyance of 1920 and the relevant date for valuation is 16th January, 1936, the date of the publication of the declaration; (2) That this conveyance represented a transaction when the boom in the land market was at its peak; and (3) That we are not satisfied on the evidence of Mr. Barber why he allowed so much as 40 per cent, for depreciation. In his evidence he admits that he did not know the age of the building and never cared to enquire about its age. 15. With regard to the award of No. 72, Nimtola Ghat Street the position stands thus: It was a debutter property with many shebaits. Only one of the shebaits accepted the award. The award, therefore, cannot be given the same weight as an accepted award. 16. Premises No. 58, Nimtola Ghat Street comprised an area of about 12 cottahs. 15. With regard to the award of No. 72, Nimtola Ghat Street the position stands thus: It was a debutter property with many shebaits. Only one of the shebaits accepted the award. The award, therefore, cannot be given the same weight as an accepted award. 16. Premises No. 58, Nimtola Ghat Street comprised an area of about 12 cottahs. It is a good shaped plot. The frontage is a long one and the plot is much nearer to the Chitpore Road which we consider to be a more important road than either Baisnab Set Street or Strand Road to the west. The land was purchased at the rate of Rs. 3,200 a cottah. Even according to the award made by the Collector for the land acquired which was at the rate of about Rs. 3,600 a cottah that rate is too low. It seems to us that the purchaser made a very good bargain over that property. The sale of premises No. 58, therefore, must be ruled out of consideration. 17. The next conveyance on which the Province of Bengal has relied is of premises No. 30, Nimtola Ghat Street. It covers a small area and has a building. It was sold on the 9th December, 1935 (Ex. 50) for Rs. 14,000. The area is 1 cottah 6 chataks with buildings, partly two-storied and partly three-storied. A portion of the building was on the road alignment and for that part of the building the owner had given an undertaking to the Corporation of Calcutta that in case the road was widened, the owner would not claim any compensation for the building which was upon the alignment. It further appears that shortly before this conveyance the vendor raised Rs. 9,000 on an equitable mortgage and at the date of the sale a sum of Rs. 9,200 was due to the mortgagee. This is proved by Ex. 51. It also appears that the vendor owed a sum of Rs. 3,000 to the purchaser and the purchaser deducted the said sum from the price. It was also under an attachment for a sum of Rs. 1,700 odd. That appears from Ex. 52, a letter of 6th December. 1935. The sum of Rs. This is proved by Ex. 51. It also appears that the vendor owed a sum of Rs. 3,000 to the purchaser and the purchaser deducted the said sum from the price. It was also under an attachment for a sum of Rs. 1,700 odd. That appears from Ex. 52, a letter of 6th December. 1935. The sum of Rs. 14,000 which was stated to be a price was accordingly swallowed up by the claim of the mortgagee, the claim of the attaching creditor and the claim of the purchaser and nothing was left for the vendor to take away. This sale was not accordingly a sale by a willing purchaser not obliged to sell. It stands practically on the same footing as that of a forced sale. That transaction, therefore, must also be ruled out. 18. The next transaction relates to premises No. 19, Nimtola Ghat Street. There was a litigation and in that litigation an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator under the orders of Court sold the property on the 23rd August, 1932 (Ex. F). The property was heavily encumbered at the time and no portion of the purchase money reached the vendor. This transaction must also be discarded. 19. There remains the only other transaction, namely, the sale of premises No. 14/3, Nimtola Ghat Street. The conveyance is Ex. E dated the 8th March, 1933. The area of land is 2 cottahs 9 chittaks 15 sq. ft. with a pucca building, partly four-storied and partly one-storied. The price paid for the land and the building was Rs. 34,000. Different estimates about the building have been given by the respective experts examined on the two sides, Mr. Barber on the side of the claimant and Mr. Dutt on the side of the Province of Bengal. Mr. Barber said in his evidence that he inspected the premises in 1940. and it was difficult for him to estimate the value of the building as in 1933 because the building had been thoroughly repaired, that he did not take measurements of the whole building, took measurements of the structures abutting on Nimtola Ghat Street and of the court-yard and he did not analyse the building in detail. In this state of things, it would have been better for him not to have risked an opinion as to the value of the structure in 1933. His opinion is that Rs. In this state of things, it would have been better for him not to have risked an opinion as to the value of the structure in 1933. His opinion is that Rs. 17,000 was the value of the structures at the date of the conveyance. We consider his evidence on the point to be valueless in view of the statements which he himself has made and which we have noted above. 20. The evidence of Mr. Dutt is that he inspected the building in or about the year 1936 and he went into details and made notes. He, however, does not produce his notes. He took the prime cost of building at Rs. 26,500 and allowed a depreciation of 25 per cent. According to him, the net cost of the building in 1933, that is to say, at the date of the conveyance could be taken at Rs. 19,875. Hence, according to him, Rs. 14,125 was paid for the land by the purchaser. That gave Rs. 5,475 per cotta. In view of the fact that he was speaking from memory and had not produced the notes of his valuation of the building which he made in 1936-37, we cannot say that his figure of Rs. 19,875 as the net cost of the building is an absolutely correct figure to go upon. But, certainly his evidence is much better than the evidence of Mr. Barber. Making due allowance, we think that the net value of the building in 1933 can be taken at a slightly lower figure. That would increase the rate per cottah for the land. There must be some amount of guess. That cannot be avoided. But as has been pointed out that in the matter of assessing compensation for compulsory acquisitions some amount of guess work is permissible. 21. Taking the above facts into consideration, we think Rs. 5,700 per cotta ought to be taken to be the value of the land of premises No. 14/3, Nimtola Ghat Street at the date of the sale and as there is no evidence that there has been a change in land values in the locality between the period 1933 and 16th January, 1936, the date of the declaration, we may proceed upon the said rate of Rs. 5,700 per cottah. 22. Mr. Dutt says that an appreciation of 14 per cent. 5,700 per cottah. 22. Mr. Dutt says that an appreciation of 14 per cent. must be allowed in view of the favourable situation of premises No. 14/3. In his cross-examination, he was asked what considerations led him to fix the percentage at 14. He stated that there was a common passage 10 feet wide on the east and a common passage of about 6 feet wide to its south, that the land had a vista on Kashi Nath Dutt Street which is on the northern side of Nimtola Ghat Street and that there was a projecting verandah on the Corporation footpath. We do not consider that projecting verandahs on Corporation footpaths can be taken as the factor which would appreciate the value of the land. He admits that an over-hanging verandah on Corporation foot-paths can be made by any owner whose land abuts on Nimtola Ghat Street by paying certain fees to the Corporation. The overhanging verandah gave more space to the building and added no doubt to the amenities of the building but it has very little bearing upon the question of the value of the land regarded as vacant land, specially in view of the admission made by Mr. Dutt that anybody who has lands on Nimtola Ghat Street could build verandahs over-hanging on the foot-paths belonging to the Corporation. We do not also attach much importance to the fact that the land had a vista on Kashi Nath Dutt Street. If Kashi Nath Dutt Street was not on the northern side but on the southern side it would have been an important factor. Therefore, whatever percentage is to be allowed must be allowed on account of the common passages. That on the east would have an appreciable effect in increasing the value of the land, for a plot of open space on the east which at no time can be built upon gives some advantage to the land. It is 10 feet wide on the east of the premises and it leads directly from Nimtola Ghat Street. But, for similar common passages appertaining to premises Nos. 19 and 30, Nimtola Ghat Street Mr. Dutt has given only 4 or 5 per cent. Premises No. 19 has two common passages, one on the east and one on the west and for that advantage, Mr. Dutt has given only 5 per cent. But, for similar common passages appertaining to premises Nos. 19 and 30, Nimtola Ghat Street Mr. Dutt has given only 4 or 5 per cent. Premises No. 19 has two common passages, one on the east and one on the west and for that advantage, Mr. Dutt has given only 5 per cent. Premises No. 30, had a common passage on its west and an open space of land on the east over which the owner had a right of easement. There, he gave only 4 per cent. The position, therefore, is that premises No. 14/3 is north-facing. The acquired premises is south-facing, that is to say, is better situated in that respect. Premises No. 14/3 is on a broader part of Nimtola Ghat Street than premises No. 70. No. 14/3 has a vista on Kashi Nath Dutt Street which is to its north. Although No. 70 cannot be said have a vista on Baisnab Charan Set Street, Baisnab Charan Set Street, runs almost south of the land. No. 14/3 is a small plot of land and the proportion between the frontage and the depth is fairer than No. 70. Owing to these advantages and disadvantages, we think that the front portion of No. 70 ought to be valued at 10 per cent. Jess than the value of the land of No. 14/3. As we have determined the market-value of the land of No. 14/3 at Rs. 5,700 a cottah, the front belt of No. 70 must be valued at the rate of Rs. 5,150 per cottah. 23. We think that for the purposes of valuation the acquired plot No. 70, ought to be divided into two belts. As the frontage is about 53 feet, the first belt ought to be taken to be of a depth of 106 feet. But instead of proceeding on nice calculation, think that plot No. 70 is to be divided into two equal belts, each belt being half of the total area. The belt on Nimtola Ghat Street is to be valued at the rate of Rs. 5,150 a cottah. 24. Then there remains the valuation of the other belt. If premises No. 70 had no recess frontage on Kundu Choudhury Lane, we would have valued the second belt at 2/3rds of the rate of the front belt. But the fact that the second belt has a recess frontage must be taken into consideration. 5,150 a cottah. 24. Then there remains the valuation of the other belt. If premises No. 70 had no recess frontage on Kundu Choudhury Lane, we would have valued the second belt at 2/3rds of the rate of the front belt. But the fact that the second belt has a recess frontage must be taken into consideration. 25. We think the second belt ought to be valued at the rate of Rs. 4,250 per cottah. 26. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The decree of the Tribunal is modified. The market-value for the land will be calculated at the said rates. On that amount, claimant would be entitled to the usual statutory allowance of 15 per cent. 27. As the appeal has succeeded in part, we allow half costs of this appeal to the Province of Bengal. Interest would run on the enhanced compensation, that is to say, the compensation in excess of the Collector's award from the date when the Collector took possession. The rate of interest would be six per cent, per annum up to the date when the excess amount was deposited in the Tribunal. The costs as awarded in the Court below in favour of the claimant would be proportionately reduced.