17. Claims for compensation and what amount to be awarded.
- Claims for compensation for any loss sustained by any person in consequence of a private ferry being taken possession of, or a new public ferry, or subsidiary ferry being established under Section 6 or Section 11, shall be enquired into by the Magistrate of the District in which such ferry is situated, who shall, with the approval of the Commissioner, award compensation to any person who may appear justly entitled thereto. Such compensation shall be calculated upon an estimate of the annual net profit actually realised by such person from such ferry on an average of the five years next preceding such declaration and shall in no case exceed the amount of fifteen times such net annual profit.[The Government of Bengal in their Municipal Department letter no. 495-T.M. and Circular No. 10-T.M., dated 23rd September 1898, to Commissioners, issued the following orders:-"It has been brought to the notice of Government that proposals for the acquisition of private ferries are occasionally submitted for orders without first ascertaining the amount of compensation likely to be claimed or eventually paid therefore, I am accordingly directed to say that in future whenever it is proposed to acquire a private ferry, the proposal should always be accompanied by an estimate of the probable financial results, showing the amount of compensation payable, the annual income, and the estimated cost of maintenance."In reply to a reference in a case in which compensation was paid for the closing of a private ferry in consequence of the construction of a bidge by a District Board, the Government of Bengal in their Municipal Department No. 2285-L.S.G., dated the 18th July 1900 to the Board issued the following orders:-"I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter no. 606-A., dated the 12th May 1900, with which you submit, for the consideration and orders of Government, a report on a case in which payment was made of compensation for the closing of a private ferry in consequence of the construction of a bridge by the District Board of Dinajpur. The Board enquire whether, on a similar case occurring, it should be taken up to the High Court, and, if necessary, to Privy Council, or if this is not to be done what course Government prescribed for adoption. Reference is made to suggestion previously put forward by the Board, that the best course might be to resume the ferry likely to be affected under Bengal Act I of 1885, and subsequently resort to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.In reply, I am to forward for the information of the Board, a copy of the opinion of the Hon'ble the Advocate-General on the question raised in your letter and to say that the Lieutenant-Governor agrees with the Advocate-General in considering that an appeal would be useless.As regards the Board's suggestion referred to above, I am to say that the Lieutenant-Governor agrees with the view expressed in the concluding portion of the Advocate-General's opinion. If Government resumed a private ferry before making a bridge, it would under Section 17 of Act I (B.C.) of 1885, have to pay fifteen times the net profits of the ferry, while under the Land Acquisition Act it would have to pay the market value, which might be more. If it were so, the higher payment would clearly be equitable. Every claim to private ferry right should be closely and jealously examined; but if the claimant has rights at all, His Honour is of opinion that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot justly be departed from."Extract from the Advocate-General's opinion:'Act I (B.C.) of 1885 enables the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal to take possession of a private ferry and declare it to be a public ferry. It would be fraud upon that Act to take possession of a private ferry not for the purpose of making it a public ferry, but for the purpose of enabling the Government to acquire it at a lower scale of compensation than that to which the owner would be entitled under the Land Acquisition Act. The course proposed in paragraph 8 of the Board's letter should therefore not be taken. To do so would be to use the Act for a purpose for which it was not intended."]
