GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY Vs. ISMAIL AHMED HAFIZ MOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After reciting the facts of the case His Lordship proceeded: Before me the claimant's Surveyor put in a valuation on a rental basis. He estimated the rents at Rs. 608 per month and, valued the vacant land as Rs. 50 per square yard. Mr. Kanga also adopted the same basis. Mr. Patel, Surveyor for claimant, sought to support his value of vacant land by capitalising the ground rent of three plots of land situated at Varli Point. As regards rents he relied upon the rents derived from the building built on one of the said three plots. Counsel for Government contended that having regard to the situation of the said three plots and the character of the said building, it was impossible to compare the property in reference with those plots either as regards rents or the value of vacant land. I inspected the property in the company of Counsel and the Surveyors for Government and claimant, and I entirely agree that the said three plots situated as they are in a superior locality can hardly afford any basis for determining either the rents of the property in reference or the value of the vacant land attached to it.

(2.) The property in reference consisted originally of a ground floor structure. The upper floors were added about fifteen years ago. The whole property, was let out prior to the date of declaration which is April 21, 1921, to the Bombay Municipality at a monthly rent of Rs. 165. The property was subject to the provisions of the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act.

(3.) Government relied for their estimate of rents on the rents of an adjoining bungalow which was acquired and demolished about a year ago. But the rents of that bungalow also were subject to the provisions of the Rent Act. There is, therefore, no basis in the present case for determining what rents the property would realise after the repeal of the Rent Act. Nor are there any materials for ascertaining the value of the vacant land. Such being the facts, this is pre- eminently a case in which the property should be valued according to the principle laid down by Sir Norman Macleod in Frenchman V/s. Assistant Collector, Haveli 68 Ind. Cas. 521 : 24 Bom. L.R. 782 : (1922) A.I.R. (B.) 399 that principle being that where the property under acquisition has, been recently purchased, the price paid is prima facie the market-value thereof. In the present case the agreement for sale was made on January 29, 1920. The property was notified for acquisition on April 21, 1921, The claimant paid Rs. 91,000 for the property and that prima facie is the market value thereof. The claimant may claim more than the price paid, and it is open to him to contend that he bought the property at less than its market- value, or that there has been a general rise in the value, of, property between the date of purchase and the date of declaration. On the other hand; it is open to Government to show that the price paid by the claimant was so high that no prudent purchaser would have paid it, and also that there has been a general fall in the value of property in the neighbourhood between the date of agreement and the date of declaration.