V KANNIA LAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANTS 1 to 11 in the land acquisition proceedings are the appellants. A total extent of 3 cawnies, 7 grounds and 661 sq. ft. comprised in R. S. 2381/88 in mylapore was acquired compulsorily under the provisions of the Land Acquisition act for construction of quarters for the staff of the police department. The notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act was made on 29-1-1958. On the basis of a sale dated 11-5-1957, of an extent of 2046 sq. ft. for Rs. 2500 in R. S. 2195/1, 4 and 5 in Mylapore, which works out at the rate of Rs. 2932 per ground, the Land acquisition Officer allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2130 per ground, after deducting 25 per cent of the area for providing roads and Rs. 800 per ground for meeting the cost of laying roads. He awarded Rs. 1,26,642-70 np. at that rate for the extent of two cawnies, 11 grounds and 1096 sq. ft. On a reference to the City civil Court, under S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Assistant Judge of that court raised the compensation payable for the land abutting the bazar road to rs. 3000 per ground and for the rest at the rear of it to Rs. 2200 per ground. He also reduced the extent to be allowed for roads to 20 per cent. But he agreed with the Land Acquisition officer as to the cost per ground of laying roads. Claimants 1 to 11 alone aggrieved by this decree have come up to this court.

(2.) IT is contended that on the basis of the sale deed, Ex. C-1, dated 19-11-1953, they should have been granted Rs. 5000 per ground for the area abutting the main road, which is of an extent of 4 grounds and 1900 sq. ft. We accept the contention. The plot sold under Ex. C-1 is also abutting the main road and is of an extent of about 3 grounds. We see no reason why this should not be taken as the basis. Clearly the rate fixed by the court below is too low. Though Ex. C-1 related to 1953 and the value in the following year should have appreciated, on a consideration of all the circumstances, Rs. 5000 per ground for the said area abutting the main road will in our opinion be reasonable.

(3.) THE next question is whether, as contended for the appellants, the court below was right in deducting 20 per cent of the total area for laying roads and Rs. 800 per ground towards the cost of laying roads in fixing the market value for the remaining land. The land is situate undoubtedly in a developed and a busy locality, but is by itself undeveloped as it is away from the main road. Extensive as it is, it has to be plotted out into smaller house sites with amenities. These amenities will consist of roads, drainage, lighting and so on, and roads will require space and laying of roads will mean expenditure. In such a case, therefore, before valuing the land as house site, allowance will have to be made for the space which will be taken up for roads and the cost of the rest of the amenities, including the cost of laying roads. This principle has been recognised in State of Madras v. Balaji chettiar, in which this court observed-