EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in L. C. No. 22 of 1954, which was a claim by Express Newspapers Ltd,, against the Government represented by the Collector ol Madras under Section 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The claim was rejected by the Court below except for an amount of Rs. 4871-4-0 allowed as compensation payable for actual costs incurred by the claimant in connection with the acquisition. In view of the importance of the subject matter, and as the research of learned counsel for the appellant (Sri K. V. Venkatasubramania Iyer) and the learned Government Pleader has failed to bring to our attention any authorities directly bearing upon Section 48(2), or the principles with reference to which compensation should be assessed under that section, we propose to deal with the facts and the law at some length.

(2.) The broad facts are that the land or site bearing R. S. Nos. 315/2 and 315/3, measuring about 8 grounds and situated on the eastern boundary of the old Madras Club premises, abutting General Patters Road, was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act on 30-9-1948, as required for widening the Woods Road. On 4-11-1948 the appellant (Express Newspapers Ltd.) intimated to the Government (Ex. R. 2) in response to notice issued under Sections 4(1) and 5A of the Act, that there was no objection to the acquisition, provided that due compensation was allowed, including damages for severance. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was on 25-1-19.50. Under Ex. R. 7 dated 1-4-1952, the appellant demanded damages, including Rs. 50 towards legal charges. The date of the notice under Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act is 26-41952. Subsequently on 22-1-1954, it was decided to drop the acquisition proceedings (Ex. G. 10) in view of the cost, and the formal notification under Section 48(1) of the Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 103-1954..

(3.) The claim of the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer was for Rs. 810,871-4-0 made up of the following items (1) damages for loss of income from the property, upon the most favourable outlay, during the pendency of acquisition Rs. 7,12,500, (2) damages for construction of temporary accommodation, as building plans were held up due to the intended acquisition Rs. 87500, (3) damages for actual expenses incurred Rs. 10871-4-0. The total claim in court was for Rs. 8,74,481-12-5, item (2) having swelled up to Rs. 1,50,110-8-5. The learned Judge negatived items 1 and 2, holding that the building plans appear to have been abandoned even prior to the Section 4(1) notification, and that there was no credible evidence to substantiate the alleged loss of revenue. Upon item (2) the learned Judge held that the intended acquisition could not possibly have interfered with the construction for which the temporary building was substituted, and that the claim was unacceptable. With regard to the loss- claimed for expenses (Rs. 10871-4-0) an actual sum of Rs. 4871-4-0 was allowed, as already stated. We shall hereafter refer, in due context, to certain particulars of the oral evidence and the documents-which appellant was able to make available to court, in support of the claim.