LAWS(PVC)-1922-3-183

K P FRENCHMAN Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR

Decided On March 17, 1922
K P FRENCHMAN Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Poona in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land in reference is a square piece of land measuring 4.77 acres with good frontages on Connaught Road and Wellesley Road. In the far corner of it there was a bungalow, which undoubtedly at the time the property was notified for acquisition on the 25 April 1919, was in a state of disrepair. The property is situated certainly near the centre of the business part of the Poona City, excluding of course the city proper. All round there are public offices, hotels, churches, shops and other such premises. I think the Judge is right in saying that it is not quite in the best situation, either for being used for residential purposes or for shops which are patronised by European customers. At the same time it cannot be doubted that the property is in the centre of what I may call the business quarter of the town.

(2.) The claimant bought the property from Mrs. Sassoon for Rs. 92,500 in July 1918. Mrs. Sassoon had not been in India for some years, and her affairs were being looked after by her agents. The property had not been very well looked after. The bungalow was rented by Mr. Defreece at Rs. 150 a month, and we may safely say that however favourable the situation of the property may have been, it does not appear from the evidence that there had been much demand for it before its acquisition. But for whatever reasons the claimant bought the property in 1918, there can be no doubt that that was a purchase by a willing purchaser from a willing seller, and it is, in the first place, direct evidence of the market value of the property in July 1918. It would be open to the claimant to show that in this neighbourhood there has been a general rise in the value of property between July 1918 a April, 1919, but he has absolutely failed to produce any evidence to show that the value of property in this neighbourhood has increased. Of course it may be said that from the very nature of the use to which the surrounding properties are put, it would not be likely that many of these properties would come into the market. Still if the claimant wishes to show that his property in April 1919 was worth more than what he gave for it, he would have to produce evidence to that effect.

(3.) On the other hand it would be open to Government to show that the claimant, when he purchased the property, had taken a far too sanguine a view of its possibilities in the future. The Acquisition Officer without considering the price which the claimant had paid for the property has in the offer he made to the claimant done everything he could to cut down the value of the property. He has valued the bungalow on a rental of Rs. 300 a month with a life 26 years. To that he has added the deferred value of the site at the end of the period and the value of the compound 14334 square yards at Rs. 6,000 an acre or a little more than a rupee a square yard, the whole giving a total of Rs. 55,688, to which had to be added the 15 per cent. for compulsory acquisition. Now that was a very low offer to make to a man who had purchased the property a few months before for Rs. 92,500. On the other hand the claimant Went to the other extreme. He produced a report by Mr. Fritchley, another by Mr. Bhedwar, and a third by Mr. Batley all containing fantastic conglomerations of figures produced for the purpose of satisfying the Court that the property which the claimant had purchased for Rs. 92,500 in July 1918 was worth over two lacs in April 1919. They are obviously worthless.