SUB-COLLECTOR Vs. PILLARISETTI PARTHASARATHI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of certain land acquisition proceedings taken for the purpose of acquiring 648 sq. ft. in Town Survey No. 1625 /1-A in Ward No. 4, Block 39 in the Town of Rajahmundry. The land acquisition officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4-8-0 per square yard. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the District Judge of East Godavari enhanced the compensation by awarding Rs. 26 per square yard. The Government has preferred this appeal and objects to the award of the District Judge on the ground that it is too high.

(2.) It is contended by the Government Pleader that the learned Judge was in error in proceeding to fix the market value with reference to the rent which was received from the property acquired. He has argued that Ex. II which is a sale-deed of neighbouring property furnishes the true basis for the award of compensation. Ex. II is dated 23 July, 1928, and is a sale of 1000 square yards at Rs. 3 a square yard. In view of the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) in the present case was issued on 11 December, 1934, and the sale- deed Ex. II was more than six years prior in date, we are of opinion that this document does not furnish proper material for fixing the market value. Moreover, there is the evidence of the second witness for the claimant who has deposed that the value of the sites in the locality has increased by reason of the springing up of fresh amenities not in existence before. He has stated that a large number of houses has sprung up near the site acquired and two cinema halls have also come into existence in the locality and a petrol bunk opposite to it. The learned Government Pleader has suggested that the evidence does not make it clear that these amenities came into existence before the notification under Section 4 (1). The learned Judge in the Court below is apparently of the opinion that they did. If it was the case of the Government that they came into existence after the notification the matter must have been cleared by cross-examination directed to the purpose. But no such thing has been done. "We are prepared to hold with the District Judge that the springing up of fresh amenities in the neighbourhood has pushed up the value of the suit site and its neighbourhood. Apart from Ex. II, there is no other sale-deed of neighbouring land which has been put forward as furnishing data for arriving at the market value. One other sale-deed, Ex. III, dated 24 July, 1928, was filed but admittedly the property covered by it is situated about half a mile away from the suit site and cannot furnish a proper criterion of the value.

(3.) The only material placed before the learned Judge in the Court below thus consisted of rental agreements of the acquired site. These are Ex. D series. Ex. D-2 the earliest of them is dated 22nd August, 1931, and was for a period of one year at Rs. 10 per month. On 1st August, 1932, another rental agreement, Ex. D-l, came into existence covering a period of two years and the rent fixed was Rs. 13. Ex. D was the rental agreement in force at the time of the notification and is dated, 1 October, 1934, and the rent fixed under it was also Rs. 13 per month. The learned Judge was right in his conclusion that Rs. 13 per month should be taken to be the gross rental received from the property. But before capitalising the rental income he should have deducted the municipal taxes payable in respect of the property and Ex. C series show that the half-yearly tax was Rs. 10-13-3. Out of a gross annual rent of Rs. 156, Rs. 21-10-6 must therefore be deducted in order to arrive at the net rental annual value.