R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT is an appeal under Section 391 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal corporations Act, 1949, being aggrieved by the judgment/order and decree dated 10. 9. 96, passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Courts, Ahmedabad in compensation Appeal No. 10564 of 1986, under which the learned Chief Judge, small Causes Courts, Ahmedabad allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 98,630. 89 ps. to the tune of Rs. 8,18,988/ -. ( 2 ) SHORT facts leading to the present appeal are that for widening of the road, municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad acquired 1528 sq. mts. of land out of a big chunk admeasuring 5096 sq. mts. of land of survey no. 231/1, T. P. Scheme No. 11, final Plot 171 of village Rakhial. ( 3 ) THE Municipal Corporation issued notice under Section 390 of the BPMC Act and the same was received by the respondent no. 1 on 5. 4. 86. In the said notice, the corporation informed the respondent-land owner that compensation of Rs. 1,37,520/- was payable to the respondent, out of which a sum of Rs. 38,037. 21 ps. was to be deducted by the Corporation for the set-back and a sum of Rs. 851/- would be paid to the government. The respondent no. 1 contested the grant of the award before the Land Acquisition Officer, but after hearing the parties and after going through the records submitted before the Land Acquisition officer, the Land Acquisition Officer confirmed the amount as awarded by the municipal Corporation. Being aggrieved by the said award and grant, the respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Courts, ahmedabad under Section 391 of the Act. After hearing the parties, the learned appellate Judge awarded Rs. 8,18,988/- as compensation to the respondent no. 1. The appellant being aggrieved by the said award is now before this Court. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned appellate Judge was absolutely unjustified in awarding the market value of the land to the tenure holder/respondent no. 1 herein, a permanent tenant under the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned appellate Judge was absolutely unjustified in awarding the market value of the land to the tenure holder/respondent no. 1 herein, a permanent tenant under the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules. His submission is that if the land has been settled upon a person for purposes of agricultural operation only, then without the permission of the government, the land cannot be transferred or alienated by him and as the acquisition is also a compulsory alienation, the market value could not be paid to the respondent, but the land should have been considered with its potential as an agricultural land. It is also submitted by him that final Plot No. 173, the value of which has been taken into consideration, was sold as non-agricultural/commercial land and as such, the said value could not be applied to the present land, which was agricultural. Learned counsel for the state, though is in attendance, but has not made any submissions. None has appeared for the respondent no. 1, therefore, we are proceeding exparte against the respondent no. 1. For appreciation of the appellants submission, we will have to refer to the government resolution dated 27th November, 1964 issued in the name of the Governor under the signature and seal of the Under Secretary to the Government. The said resolution of the government reads as under:"the question regarding determination of compensation payable to the permanent tenants when such lands are acquired has been considered by categories as under:- [a] Permanent tenants on private land. [b] Permanent tenants on Government land. 2. Regarding (A ). the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 provides for conferring occupancy rights on the permanent tenants on payment of six times the rent. On payment of this amount, the permanent tenant will hold the lands as occupant. Generally the land will be held on old tenure (vide section 43 (2) (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ). Similarly, the Land Acquisition Officer will have to take into consideration the occupancy rights accrued to the permanent tenants under the various Tenure abolition Acts. Generally the land will be held on old tenure (vide section 43 (2) (1b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ). Similarly, the Land Acquisition Officer will have to take into consideration the occupancy rights accrued to the permanent tenants under the various Tenure abolition Acts. If the permanent tenant holds the land as occupant on old tenure, the land should be valued as old tenure land compensation paid to him accordingly after deducting the occupancy price, payable to the landlord, if not paid already. The landlord should be awarded the occupancy price payable under the Tenancy and the Tenure Abolition Acts, if not already paid. 3. Regarding (B) it may be observed that the tenure of permanent tenancy in respect of Government lands is not ordinarily recognised under the Land Revenue code. However, there are rare cases in which Civil Courts have recognised the cultivator as permanent tenant. In such cases the permanent tenants may be of the two categories. If the permanent tenant is competent to transfer in any way to anybody without the sanction of Government or any competent Government officer, the land should be valued as old tenure land and compensation determined accordingly. The permanent tenant should be paid the amount of compensation after deducting the capitalised value of assessment which should be credited to government. If the permanent tenant is not competent to transfer his right without the sanction of Government or any competent Government Officer, out of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Government should get the capitalised value of assessment plus the premium, which is payable to Government under the law or the standing orders of Government, for permitting the transfer of the land on restricted tenure. The rest of the compensation should be paid to the permanent tenant. 4. In case of agricultural land, the capitalised value of assessment should be 30 times the assessment while in case of non-agricultural land the capitalisation should be at 20 times. " ( 5 ) FROM the said resolution, it would clearly appear that the permanent tenant can be classified into two broad categories namely; (a) permanent tenants on private land and (b) permanent tenants on government land. " ( 5 ) FROM the said resolution, it would clearly appear that the permanent tenant can be classified into two broad categories namely; (a) permanent tenants on private land and (b) permanent tenants on government land. The resolution, while dealing with the permanent tenants on government land says that tenure of permanent tenancy in respect of the government lands is not ordinarily recognised under the Land Revenue Code, however, there are rare cases in which the Civil Courts have recognised the cultivator as permanent tenant. The resolution further says that in such cases, the permanent tenants may be of two categories. If the permanent tenant is competent to transfer in any way to anybody without the sanction of the government or any government officer, the land should be valued as old tenure land and compensation be determined accordingly. Permanent tenant should be paid the amount of compensation after deducting the capitalised value of assessment which should be credited to the government. The resolution further refers to the rights of a permanent tenant who is not competent to transfer his rights without the sanction of the government and says that out of the compensation awarded under the Land acquisition Act, 1894, the government should get the capitalised value of assessment plus the premium, which is payable to the government for permitting the transfer of the land on restricted tenure. The rest of the compensation should be paid to the permanent tenant. The resolution, in no doubtful terms, says that in case of agricultural land, the capitalised value of assessment should be 30 times the assessment, while in case of non-agricultural land, the capitalised value should be at 20 times. ( 6 ) IN the present matter, if the government resolution is applied, then, the value of the land, which has been settled upon the respondent as agricultural land, will have to be taken as market value after taking into consideration the value of the lands which are in the same vicinity or which are adjoining land or which are contiguous to the land in class. ( 7 ) THE respondent had produced certain material before the Land Acquisition officer to contend that the price of the adjoining land was between Rs. 500 to rs. 1200 per sq. mt. , during the period of 1975 to 1982. The learned appellate judge has observed that if the lands value could be Rs. ( 7 ) THE respondent had produced certain material before the Land Acquisition officer to contend that the price of the adjoining land was between Rs. 500 to rs. 1200 per sq. mt. , during the period of 1975 to 1982. The learned appellate judge has observed that if the lands value could be Rs. 500/- per sq. mt. in the year 1974 and Rs. 1204/- in the year 1982, then, average value of the land in the year 1977 would be Rs. 700/- only. In our considered opinion, the learned lower appellate court was justified in adopting the said calculation. It is also to be seen that while applying the provisions of Section 390, the learned appellate court has observed that the compensation is to be paid towards the losses suffered and the gains acquired. The court has observed that as the respondent did not bring any evidence on record to show that he had spent any money for development of the land or had suffered any loss to the rest of the land, he would not be entitled to such losses. The learned first appellate court has, however, observed that as the remainder land of the respondent, since after acquisition would be abutting/adjoining the road, he would get better benefits and the market value of the land would be increased at least by 10%. After calculating the value for 5096 sq. mts. at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month, the court deducted the value of the remainder land, which was calculated at the rate of Rs. 770/- per sq. mt. From this calculation, it would clearly appear that the learned appellate court did take into consideration the benefits which would be acquired by the respondent as a consequence of the acquisition. The court below was also justified in rejecting the claim of the respondent so far as it related to solatium and interest observing that the solatium and interest are not payable in view of the provisions of law as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Bank of India, reported in JT 1994 (3) SC 535. 7. 1 We have gone through the judgment of learned Judge. Bank of India, reported in JT 1994 (3) SC 535. 7. 1 We have gone through the judgment of learned Judge. As regards the principle of compensation he has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal corporation, Greater Bombay (supra) wherein the Apex Court has considered the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 301 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 which is in pari materia with Section 216 of the BPMC Act. The Apex Court has laid down detailed principles fixing compensation under the Act and the learned Judge has already considered and followed the same and therefore also even on merits of the matter we do not intend to interfere with the judgment under appeal. ( 8 ) WHILE calculating the amount at the rate of Rs. 700/- per sq. mts. , the Court observed that in view of the calculation afore-referred, the losses because of the acquisition and dispossession would be to the tune of Rs. 8,19,840/-, out of which the capitalised value of the assessment will have to be deducted and the said amount of the capitalised value would be Rs. 851. 90 ps. , rounded of to Rs. 852/ -. The amount of Rs. 852/- has also been deducted as the amount payable to the government. It appears that the learned lower appellate court has taken into consideration the provisions of law, the principles adopted by the Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra) and the government resolution issued by the government. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. .