Collector of Madras vs Mohammed Habibullah Sahib and Others

Ramaprasada Rao, J.—Appeal Suit No. 193 of 1968 is filed by the State and Appeal Suit No. 9 of 1969 is by the claimant-owner These

Appeals arise in land acquisition proceedings and the properties involved are comprised in Survey Nos. 2/1 and 3/1 of Kalikundram village, within

the municipal limits of the City of Madras. The total extend acquired is 18 acres 17 cents. There are two ponds in the area. A notification u/s 4(1)

of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on December 7, 1960. There was a bungalow on the property which was a Madras terraced strayed

building. There were five wells and two pump-sets, besides trees on the acquired lands. The Land Acquisition Officer ''found that the two ponds in

the area were situate oft an extent of 53 cents. He caused the building to be valued by an Engineer who under exhibit R-26, valued the same along

with the pump-sets therein. The Land Acquisition Officer accepted the value as given by R.W. 1. The Land Acquisition Officer, having regard to

the extent of the lands acquired, valued only the superstructure and separately valued the lands covered by the acquisition. On the date when the

award was passed Madras Act XXIII of 1961 which amended the main Land Acquisition Act, was in force. The Land Acquisition Officer,

therefore, took the average price of lands in the vicinity and arrived at the market value of the lands acquired, added on thereto the value of the

superstructures, pump-sets, wells, trees, etc., and granted a solatium at five per cent thereon, as prescribed in that Act. He fixed the value at Rs.

90 per cent for the level ground and at Rs. 10 percent for the pond area. He accepted the value of the engineer P.W. 1 arid granted a

compensation of Rs. 21,204-75 for the superstructure, etc., and added on the five per cent solatium in all to the compensation awarded by him.

The claimants maintained that they were entitled to a price of Rs. 700 per cent for the lands and Rs. 1,00,000 towards the superstructure, etc. The

claimants were dissatisfied with the award and caused a reference to he made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court. The learned

City Civil Judge (IV Assistant Judge) on a, reference u/s 18, increased the compensation and valued the ground uniformly at Rs. 360 per cent,

which works out at Rs. 2,000 per ground, and deducted a sum of Rs. 3,000 from the totality of such compensation for filling up the two ponds. He

also slightly increased the compensation for the superstructure, wells, pump-sets and trees. He rightly held that Madras Act XXIII of 1961 having

been held to be invalid by the Supreme Court, the prices of lands have to be valued on the date of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and also

upheld the entitlement of the claimants to the 15 per cent solatium as is statutorily prescribed under the main Act. The State has filed Appeal Suit

No. 193 of 1968. It is surprising that the State wants the award of the Land Acquisition Officer to be restored notwithstanding the fact that the

award was based on Madras Act XX XXIII of 1961 which was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court. Their gravemen of the charge

is that the Court below gave a higher compensation than necessary. The claimants However, aggrieved against the order of the Court below, are

reiterating their claim for lands at the rate of Rs. 70,000 per acre or Rs. 3,856-75 per ground. They would also value the buildings, wells, trees,

pump-sets, etc., at Rs. 1,21,201-75 and would also ask for 15 per cent solatium on the enhanced compensation claimed by them. They have, in a

supplementary application which we have allowed, sought for the payment of interest at the statutory rate of four per cent per annum on the

enhanced compensation subject to the payment of additional Court fee payable thereon. They are, however, not questioning the deduction of Rs.

3,000 from the entirety of the compensation towards the cost for filling up the two ponds in the acquired area. Hence the appeals respectively by

the State and the aggrieved claimants.

Before we advert to the method and mode of evaluation of the property acquired, it is essential to note certain general features of the

surroundings in the sector of acquisition. Exhibit R-25 is the combined sketch showing the location of the acquired lands and the sales spots taken

up for comparison. As both the Appellants felt that this sketch was not self-instructive, it was agreed that we should refer to a composite sketch

filed in Appeal Suit No. 156 of 19(34 disposed of by us recently. That sketch was marked in the said proceedings as exhibit R-29. The learned

Government Pleader, in order to further elucidate the topography, prepared another sketch which is equally instructive, to show the importance of

the locality, the surroundings therein, as also the plots with which the acquired lands were compared for purposes of evaluation. It is with reference

to these three sketches that the general features of the surroundings and the importance of the locality have to be set out.

The sector of acquisition is to the east of the Buckingham Canal and removed therefrom and is just in the heart of building colonies. To the west

of the Buckingham Canal three utilitarian communal and beneficial projects of a developmental nature were undertaken and for that purpose vast

lands were compulsorily acquired. By a notification, dated November 11, 1959, in the village of Kottur which is to the west of Buckingham Canal

and north-west of the acquired lands, a project for the installation of the Regional Labour Museum of Industrial Safety, Health and Welfare was

undertaken. About two months thereafter on January 13, 1960, another project was taken up and vast extents of lands were acquired for the

situation of the Labour Research Institute and Voluntary Health Centre. On September 14, 1960, large areas were acquired on the west of the

Buckingham Canal for the Central Polytechnic, Madras. In fact, the lands acquired for the public purpose of setting up the Central Polytechnic

were not sufficient, and about 10 months thereafter, a further scheme had to be undertaken for the same purpose. It is in the midst of such

thumping development in the area that the present acquisition was thought of on the eastern side of the Canal. Such an activity in the surrounding

does have an impact and beneficial influence on the market price of lands in the vicinity as it was only the Buckingham Canal which separated the

region of such beneficial activity from the lands acquired. Contemporaneously with such communal, educational and developmental projects on the

west of the acquired lands, building colonies developed from time to time m the northern region of the acquired lands. Gandhi Nagar was one of

the first of such colonies to come up. Later on various other Nagara such as Indira Nagar, Shastry Nagar, Bakthavathsalam Nagar, Nehru Nagar

and Kamaraj Nagar came up on the northern side of the lands acquired. We are however concerned with the building colonies like

Bakthavathsalam Nagar, Nehru Nagar and Kamaraj Nagar which are in the zone under consideration and which had a recent origin.

Some instructive material regarding the surrounding of the acquired lands is also noticed in the Fort St. George Gazette of July to December

1964, Part III Supplement, dated October 21, 1961. This information was publicly gathered by the State authorities in connection with a statutory

enquiry prescribed under the Madras Urban Land Tax Act. This was brought to our notice in an earlier appeal. The description given therein is

useful to highlight the quality of the land in the neighborhood of the sector of acquisition. It states that civic amenities such as water supply, drainage

and electricity, are available only in Bhaktavatsalam Nagar and are yet to be extended to other building colonies such as Nehru and Kamaraj

Nagar, in the immediate proximity of the acquired lands, The learned Government Pleader nearly concedes that public water supply scheme and

the under ground drainage have not yet bean extruded to the acquired lands. He would also agree that an there was a big bungalow in the acquired

land and an there was a dairy farm in it, the amenity of electric power is available and no effort is required to procure the same. It is however

common ground that the lands, excepting the pond area, are eminently fit to i.e. utilized as building sites. The composite land has a wide frontage of

about 1,244 links on a preexisting arterial road like the Lattice Bridge Road. The purpose of the acquisition itself is for extension of the Madras

neighbourhood. On the east of the region, there is what is known as the Urur Building Scheme, again sponsored by the State Housing Board.

Thiruvammyur, a healthy suburb, is also of the eastern side of the lands acquired. The Lattice Bridge Road gains entry into another important road

like the Vannanthurai road, which is the link road for the Urur Colony. The Transport Depot is opposite to the land. Thus the lands acquired are in

a developed, semi-developed and developing residential and non-residential colonies and have a special importance of their own.

The learned City Civil Judge who enquired into the matter on a reference u/s 33 of the Act, found several aspects which were common ground.

He observed that there were many educational institutions such as the Indian Institute of Technology, Leather Technological Institute and other

institutes noted by us already, were to tin north-west of -the Acquired lands. The acquired lands are situate practically in an industrial area. He

characterize the Lattice Bridge Road as one of the main lugh roads and it is also a bus route. The east is also well connected with the acquired

lands through the Vannanthurai Road which is also a State Transport Bus route. Eros Theatre is situate in Lattice Bridge Road within a furlong

from the acquired land. The Urur area which is a residential colony is to the east of the region of acquisition. There was a bungalow on the

acquired lands and the entire appurtenance was used as a dairy farm. He has noticed that many schemes and acquisitions therefor on a large scale

were carried out and implemented in the year 1060. He is rightly of the view that as the lands in question and other vacant lands in the locality were

acquired for the very purpose of constructing buildings, it is common ground that the acquired lands have the potentiality of house sites. He would

conclude that for many reasons the price of vacant lands before 1960 was comparatively less than the price prevailing after 1960 and that the price

of vacant lands has risen in leaps and bounds after 1960. It is only with this background that the Court below valued the plots.

It is now for us to consider as to how to value this vast extent of and which is no doubt undeveloped, but in a developed surrounding. We heard

interesting arguments from Counsel and abundant precedents were cited. It is a fundamental canon of valuation in compulsory acquisition

proceedings that unless comparable and quantitatively and qualitatively similar lands are available for comparison and for assessment of market

value on the valuation rate, which is the date of notification u/s 4, it would not be proper to adopt indiscriminately the prevailing prices of dissimilar

lands of a different quality and fix the value of the acquired lands. If an estate has to be valued, a sale of a similar estate, similar in extent and quality

should be sought and relied upon. Generally values of small plots cannot be a safe guide to be adopted implicitly while valuing large extents of land.

In a series of cases which came up before the Bombay High Court, the learned Judges therein coined a new expression like the wholesale price

and retail price of lands. By the former they meant the price of vast and extensive lands which could be compared, being similar in all respects. The

retail price has reference to the valve of a plot smaller in area, whether developed or undeveloped. It is undeveloped in the sense that all the known

and normal civic amenities are not available to it except that it has a road frontage or an access to mad. If it is a developed plot then all or some

amongst the normal civil amenities are avail-able to it. If ''X'' represented the value per ground of a developed plot, then while evaluating an

undeveloped plot, though of a larger extent, they considered that it would be (worth between 1/3 X or 1/2 X.) This rough proportion evolved by

experience, by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court as regards the whole sale price and retail price of lands gained support from the

Privy Council as well-see In the matter of Government of Bombay v. Karim Tar Mohomed I.L.R.1908) 33 Bom. 325, Bombay Improvement

Trust Vs. Mervanji Manekji Mistry, and Nowroji Rustomiji v. The Government of Bombay I.L.R.(1925) 49 Bom. 700

Our High Court, on the other hand, while maintaining an intelligible differential between what according to the Bombay High Court was

wholesale price and retail price, carved out certain fundamental data, sometimes based'' ion the belting system of valuation and at many other times

on the basis of Hypothetical Building Schemes. We have indicated in other cases as to when the belting system of valuation has to be relied upon.

Generally lands are belted if a distinct and separable portion of the same is inaccessible and/or low lying and capable of separate evaluation and the

other portion higher in level and is proximate to an existing road. Thus certain exceptional circumstances should exist before the highly artificial

belting system is invoked. On the other hand and particularly in cases where the extent is large but undeveloped, but situate in the midst of a

developed or developing surrounding, the hypothetical building scheme is thought of. Though'' the element of certitude is equally wanting in the

hypothetical building scheme method, and it is often characterized as fallacious, yet this has been generally invoked. Such method of evaluation la

resorted to generally in cases where there was no recent sales of similar extensive lands in the neighborhood such that the price derived therefrom

may form the basis or a guide to the Court to determine value of the acquired lands. Due to paucity of such evidence and particularly when there is

no evidence at all sales in the vicinity of large extensive block of lands as one unit, as in the instant case, the prices obtained by sales of small pieces

of land afford a reasonable criteria to the Court to give an opinion regarding the values of such plots in the block acquired. This process, however,

involves the deduction of expenses required for making out one of such plots in the acquired area similar to the plot compared. If the plot

compared was enjoying all civic amenities such as water, drainage and electricity, and if the plots acquired also are capable of being provided with

such amenities, then it is necessary to investigate into the cost of such amenities and deduct such expenses from the prices paid for the compared

plot and arrive at the net price. But in cases where the compared plot itself enjoys any one or more of such normal civic amenities and if the

compared plot also could receive such a benefit or benefits only then to that extent the amenity or amenities has or have to be valued and the net

price arrived at by deducting the same from the value of the compared plot. This system which is alternatively characterized as a speculative

purchaser system which involves the plotting out of the large extent of land into building sites, appears to have gained sufficient support from the

decisions of our Court. The progress in this: An hypothetical building'' scheme is thought of. Deductions are made for every conceivable benefit

which has to be or can be provided in the area and the attenuated balance is ultimately reckoned as the market value of the land.

We shall now deal with the case law cited before us at the Bar to demonstrate the consistent practice of this Court in evaluating large extents of

land. It should however be remembered that in all the cases cited before us, all the civic amenities such as drainage, water-supply and electricity

were available and it became obvious for the learned Judges to provide for the cost of such amenities, besides deducting a certain percentage from

the totality of the area for laying out roads inside the acquired lands to make every portion of it accessible and communicable.

In State of Madras Vs. Balaji Chettiar and Others, a Bench of this Court was concerned with the evaluation of lands in an area called

Mandavalli, in the heart of the City and in the midst of a well developed residential area. There the extent of land acquired was about 1,400

grounds in all. They had to classify the lands into many groups, one of which they characterized as hinter land. Whilst adopting the usual principle

as stated above, they deducted 25 per cent of the lands for purposes of the space required for roads for all groups excepting the hinter land group

for which the learned Judges thought that 10 per cent of the space of such hinter land would be sufficient for road laying. Besides, they deducted

from the price of a developed plot which they took in for comparison the amount required for providing the civic amenities referred to above and

towards the cost of laying the roads. The notification u/s 4 therein was in 1948 and the cost for providing the amenities was estimated at Rs. 400

per ground.

In an acquisition of an area of 161 grounds which took place near Haddows Road, which again is a place of importance in the City of Madras,

a Division Bench of this Court in Karimuddin v. Collector of Madras ILR (1964) Mad. 337 observed as follows at p. 338):

The land acquired by the Government is not agricultural land or accommodation land, but it is building land. There is a great demand for plot in this

locality. The land is situated in the heart of the City. The entire area has been electrified and the Corporation has, as stated already laid down good

roads and provided all facilities for the residents of that locality. It is only within the area acquired by the Government that roads have to be laid

and necessary facilities have to be provided for the convenience of persons occupying the quarters to be constructed by the Government in that

area. It is not one of those cases where the Government has acquired land in an undeveloped area for the purpose of converting it into a housing

area, where-naturally certain portion of the acquired land should be set apart for laying roads and other amenities have to be provided for the

residents in that area. The Government would be justified in such cases in deducting the cost of the amenities from the compensation payable to the

owners. This principle will not apply to a case of acquisition of 3 large extent of land in the occupation of a single owner and situated in the heart of

the town, where all amenities have already been provided for the residents in the neighbourhood. The owner in such a case cannot be called upon

to bear the cost of the amenities to be provided in his land which has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of constructing quarters for

its servants. The deduction of 16 grounds for laying roads in the area acquired cannot also be supported.

It is seen that the learned Judges thought that in case where civic amenities are available in the surroundings, there is no necessity to deduct from

the value of a developed plot the expenses required for providing such amenities in the acquired area notwithstanding the fact that the acquired land

is of a large extent provided is owned by a single person or a body A persons. That is so in tie case before us. In fact, this principle has been

referred to, but not dissented from, in Kannia Lal v. Collector of Madras I.L.R.(1965) Mad. 470 Veeraswami J., as he then was, referring to the

decision in Karimuddin v. Collector of Madras I.L.R.(1964) Mad. 337 and (at page 472):

But it may be seen that compensation in that case two was given at a higher rate per ground for lands abutting the road and at a lower rate for

lands lying to the rear. Further, this Court in that case was valuing a bungalow with a large extent of land around it forming one unit, the whole of

which was compulsory acquired.

It is thus seen that the second division Bench in Kannia Lal v. Collector of Madras ILR (1965) Mad. 470 would not disagree with the principle

that in case a vast extent of land is situate as one unit and owned by one person and if all amenities are available in the vicinity, then the expenses

for provision of civic amenities need not be thought of and deducted, in case the hypothetical building scheme is invoked for reckoning the value of

the acquired lands. In Kannia Lal v. Collector of Madras I.L.R.(1965) Mad. 470 also the lands were situate in a sophisticated locality and 20 per

cent of the lands were set apart for road making.

The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the feasibility of valuing vast extents of land on plot-wise rate. In Uttar Pradesh Government Vs.

H.S. Gupta, an estate known as Dilkusha Estate, near a municipal area, was acquired. It was common ground that lands were parcelled out and

sold as smaller plots in a scheme area known as Mahanagar scheme. In those circumstances the Supreme Court observed at follows (at p. 206):

The application of the principle that if the land alias to be sold in one block consisting of a large area, the rate per square foot likely to be fetched

would be smaller than if an equal extent of land is parcelled out into smaller bits and sold to different purchasers, cannot be reasonably applied to

the circumstances in the present case. The High Court should have, in our view concentrated its attention on the price fetched for smaller extent of

land similarly situated with the same kind of advantages and drawbacks and then applied that test to the facts in the present case. Viewed in that

light, it would be proper to consider the Mahanagar scheme as the nearest approach.

Thus where a building scheme valuation is involved in the light of the principles as above it is seen (i) that the fundamental from of evaluation

appears to be that where lands similarly situate and living the same or similar amenities as that of the acquired lands are sold at or about the time of

the valuation date, then, notwithstanding the fact that the acquired land is of vast extent, the price paid for the compared land can serve as a

reasonable data for purses of gross valuing the acquired land even plot wise provided it belonged to a single owner and was occupied before

acquisition. The only other deduction that has to be made in such cases appears to be to provide for the cost of laying roads inside the acquired

lands, (ii) The second principle is that if the compared land or the data sale as it is commonly called, relates to a plot or a small extent of land which

is an ideal building site having a road frontage but not enjoying the civic amenities or enjoying some amongst them, then this has to be borne in mind

while ultimately providing for attention to arrive at the market price of the acquired land. (iii) The third building rule is that if, there are no civic-

amenities enjoyed by the compared plot and if in the acquired lands also there is no possibility of such extension of the normal civic amenities then

it appears that no deduction whatsoever need be made under the head of cost of amenities (iv) The fourth principle which is of an over-all nature is

that in any event the cost of constructing roads and a provision for road space for laying such roads have to be made, and in each case it has to be

decide according to its circumstances as to what ought to be the percentage of the total area which should be set apart for the laying of the roads,

(v) The fifth principle which is a well accepted one, is this. Judged by every day principle and commercial standards, the price arrived at for the

acquired lands should n present the price which a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller. In the words of Wyan I'' Ahry, J., in In re Press

Caps Ltd. (1949) Ch. 4347 (L):

A valuation is only an expression of opinion...but the final test of what is the value of a thing is what it will fetch if sold.

Lastly, the highest price prevailing in the locality has to be granted as representing the just equivalent in money of the acquired lands, for, as

observed by the Supreme Court in Ranee of Vuyyur v. Collector of Madras (1969) 1 M.L.J. 45 (S.C.):

It seems to be only fair that the highest value shown in the sale deeds relied on by Government should be preferred to the rest unless there are

strong circumstances justifying a different course.

This is of course subject to the reduction of the payment of any public charges by then due on the property.

Before we proceed further, we would like to refer to certain passages in the book on Modern Methods of Valuation land, houses and

buildings by David M. Lawrence, the attention to which was drawn by the learned Government Pleader. This ha& special reference to some of the

principles set out by us as above and particularly where the question arises whether any attenuation is called for to provide for civic amenities in the

plots acquired. As the provision for such cost of amenities is not a permanent feature, but variable according to the region of acquisition, its

importance and availability of civic amenities, it becomes necessary for us to examine this aspect more fully as a peculiar situation has arisen in this

case since no civic amenities such as water supply and drainage are available in the area and there is only a silver lining of the same being provided

in the future, which is uncertain. The learned author in. the above book, in Chapter XII headed Development Properties states as follows:

The term ""Development Properties"" is used here to candidate the type of property the value of which can be increased by capital expenditure, by a

change in the use to which the property is put, or possibly by a combination of capital expenditure and change of use. It has commonly been

applied to areas of undeveloped land close to existing development and likely to be in future demand for building purposes; to individual sites in

town, at present unbuilt on; and to other urban sites occupied by buildings which have become obsolescent and which do not utilize the site to the

best advantage. The value, which in these cases is latent in the property, can only be released by development and in all cases is subject to the

necessary planning permission being granted.

In dealing with a particular area of land the local circumstances must be carefully considered, e.g., the growth of prosperity of the town, the existing

supply of houses, factories or other buildings, and the amenities of the particular property under consideration.

It is, of course, essential that proper access to the land is available. The proximity of public services is, also, of considerable importance. If public

sewers, pas, electricity and water-supplies are readily available development becomes practicable and is only dependent on demand.

Illustration (a) at page 166 and the example given by the learned author at page 172 lay considerable importance on the availability of civic

amenities and public services. Only in cases where such public services are available, then, in evaluating an undeveloped plot by comparing it with

a developed plot, a provision and consequential deduction from the price of a developed plot has to be made towards the available civic amenities

in the locality. Thus it is very clearly conceded by the Government that if all or some of the civic amenities are not availably then pro tanto no

deduction need be made from the value of a developed plot to arrive at the value of an undeveloped plot in a developing area.

The learned Government Pleader, however, invited our attention to the provisions on the Madras Town Planning Act (Act VII of 1920)

apparently to contend that in so far as this State is concerned, the availability of public services appears to be not a factor which enters into

account for assessing the value of undeveloped lands which are compulsorily acquired. But the provisions of the Town Planning Act would apply

only in cases where the Corporation or the Municipality, as the case may be, has resolved and decided to prepare a town planning scheme in

respect of any notified area within its precincts. Section 9 provides for it. A town-planning scheme is defined in Section 4 as one which may

provide for all or any of the matters mentioned therein, including water-supply, lighting, drainage including sewerage, etc. It is therefore clear that

the provision for water-supply and lighting and drainge is optional. But if it is provided in a scheme it becomes a statutory obligation on the part of

the Council to provide such service. In the instant case there is no such town-planning scheme which governs the area, nor is it contended before

us that any statutory obligation has been undertaken by the Corporation of Madras to provide such amenities under the Town Planning Act.

Development of vacant, land in the City has to be done under the provisions of the Madras City Municipal Act and in the said Act it is not disputed

that there is any such indication for the compulsory provision of civic amenities before a lay-out for development of undeveloped lands is

sanctioned. Even if it is provided as a condition for laying out of a vast extent of land it ultimately depends upon the availability at public services in

the vicinity. Therefore, this aspect touched upon by the learned Government Pleader does not take us further.

It is in the above fasciculus of facts, events and law that the acquired lands have to be valued.

* * *

We shall however attempt to evaluate by the orthodox basis as well. If a plot having road frontage in the sector of acquisition is worth Rs.

5,000 per ground with no immediate prospect of the civic amenities like water supply and drainage being extended to it, them it is a necessary to

evaluate the net cost per ground after deducting from the above the value of the land required for road making inside the area and for other

expenses, if any, thereto connected.

We have already seen that in so far as provision for setting apart a portion of the acquired lands for laying out roads inside the colony is

concerned, there has been considerable divergence of opinion. Whereas in Karimuddin v. Collector of Madras ILR (1964) Mad. 337 this Court

would consider that no provision need be made for roads or amenities at all in case a large extent is owned by a single owner and the surroundings

are fully developed, the earlier view in The State of Madras Vs. Balaji Chettiar and Others, and the later view in Kannia Lal v. Collector of

Madras ILR (1965) Mad. 470 appears to be that at least one-fourth or one-fifth of the total area has to be so set apart for purposes of road-

making. But in State of Madras Vs. Balaji Chettiar and Others, the learned Judges have provided only 10 per cent of the extent of hinter land, for

the same purpose. Thus, there is considerable variance in the extent of the land, which has to be so excluded as being required for road purposes.

The acquired lands, of an area of 18 acres 17 cents which is about 330 grounds, admittedly have a frontage of 1,244 links on the Latice Bridge

Road. The learned Government Pleader has taken a depth of 150 feet as the reasonable depth over which the influence of the Latice Bridge Road

can be felt from the eastern side. Thus calculated, about 53 grounds can straightway be taken as road side land. The remaining extent is about 145

grounds in S. No. 2/1. It should not be forgotten that behind the acquired lands, in this appeal there are lands which are owned by the same

Appellants and which are the subject-matter of R.S. No. 57 of 1970. We have heard that appeal also and it is common ground that the lands

which are the subject-matter of these appeals and that which is covered by R.S. No. 57 of 1970 do form a single unit as it were and before

acquisition they were duly fenced.

The land which is the subject-matter of R.S. No. 57 of 1970 is of an area or 13 acres, 37 cents which is roughly 243 grounds and comprised

in S. No. 4/1. Thus the total extent of land belonging to the Appellants which were compulsorily acquired under the same scheme was about 573

grounds out of which 53. grounds are admittedly road-abutting lands which, need no further improvement. Considering this and in view of the

decisions of our Court cited already, we are of the view that one-sixth of the total extent of the entire unit belonging to the Appellant may be

deducted on an average as being required for laying roads inside the acquired lands to make it suitable as ideal building sites.

The next question is as to what provision has to be made in the peculiar circumstances and facts of this case towards, the cost of amenities.

Due to the explicit concession made by the State that there it no provision for water-supply or drainage either in the land covered by exhibit C-l or

in the acquired area and in view of the general description given of the lands in this zone in the Fort St, George Gazette referred to above, we have

no hesitation in stating '' that excepting for the cost of laying the road, no further provision need be made towards the cost of other amenties as

such and provision therefor is not necessary in the instant case, having regard to the peculiar situation and the facts attendant thereon. In Kannia Lal

v. Collector of Madras ILR (1965) Mad. 470 a Bench of this Court held that in 1958 the total cost of amenities which would include road-

making, water supply, drainage and lighting was assessed at Rs. 600 per ground and that too in a very well developed locality like Myiapore. In

this case the acquisition was in 1960 and we are of the view that for purposes of laying the road and for extending the facility of electricity, which is

already available in the acquired land, to the other building plots to be carved out in the hypothetical building scheme a sum of Rs. 250 per ground

could be set apart for the purpose. Thus the net value per ground of an undeveloped plot in the acquired area would be about Rs. 3,900 per

ground after making a provision for its laying and construction. The Appellants however have claimed Rs. 3,856-75 per ground. The Appellants

would be entitled to the same subject to the remarks following.

We have referred to two ponds in the acquired lands over an extent of 53 cents in all. According to the land Acquisition Officer, they are

about five to six feet in depth. C.W. 1 however would say that there is only one pond. The evidence of C.W. 1 is not clinching, but apparently he

means that the smaller of the ponds was only a water tank constructed in front of the bungalow. The lower Court, in these circumstances, had to

admit the evidence adduced on the side of the State through the Land Acquisition Officer. The lower Court however adopted a curious reasoning

that as the acquired land is extensive the ponds could IKS filled up by earth being removed from certain high level land without incurring much of

the cost. According to the Land Acquisition Officer, the cost of filling up the ponds would be Rs. 80 per 1,000 cubic feet. For every ground of

land to raise the level by cue foot it would cost about Rs. 200. According to the Land Acquisition Officer the ponds are five feet deep. Then for

each ground an expense of Rs. 1,000 is required. The extent to be levelled up is about 10� grounds. Therefore the State claims that the

deduction of Rs. 3,000 made as against a sum of about Rs. 10,000 is unreasonable. Regard should also be had to the formula suggested by the

Court below. There was no check up or a contour map as to what exactly was the depth of the ponds on the valuation date. A person should not

be arbitrarily deprived of legitimate compensation. But there is some force in the contention of the Government Pleader that Rs. 3,000 allowed by

the Court below is very low. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we find that a. sum of Rs. 7,500 has to be provided for filling up the

ponds and this shall be deducted from the total compensation to which the claimants would be entitled to in accordance with our judgment.

Regarding the building in the acquired land which is also the subject matter of the acquisition, the claimants have sought a total compensation of

Rs. 1,21,204.75 as against a compensation of Rs. 31,204.75 granted by the Court below. C.W. 1 in the witness box admits that the building is 50

years old. He valued the property through its engineer who has submitted his report in exhibit R-26 Learned Counsel for the claimants is not in a

position to disprove either the particulars in exhibit R-26 or the mode of valuation adopted by the valuer. No evidence has been placed before us

to value the building in a manner otherwise than as the State did. The property tax for the premises during the year of acquisition was Rs. 1,090.75

for each of the half-years. This is seen from exhibit C-2. But even this cannot be relied upon, for the suit filed by the Corporation for recovery of

property tax on that basis was ultimately dismissed. The Court below found as a fact that the various rates and the particulars set out in exhibit R-

26 are not without any basis and do not appear to-be too low. As we said, there is no material placed before us to reconsider the decision of the

Court below. The claim for increased compensation in so far as it related to the bungalow in the acquired land is concerned, is dismissed.

In the result Appeal Suit No. 9 of 1969 is allowed in part with proportionate costs. The Appellants will be entitled to the usual 15 per cent

solarium on the compensation awarded. The Appellants would also be entitled to interest on the excess compensation at 4 per cent per annum

from the date of possession till date of deposit. This is the subject to the claimants paying the court-fee on such interest up to the date of filing the

appeal within one month from this date. As Appeal Suit No. 3 of 1969 is allowed, nothing survives in Appeal Suit 193 of 1908 except to the

allowance already considered. It is accordingly dismissed but without costs.