THAREESAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think the District Judge is inclined to allow insufficient weight to the award itself, which is the estimate of an impartial officer, based upon evidence and personal enquiry, and cannot therefore be ignored in coming to a conclusion on the evidence, but notwithstanding this I am not prepared to differ from his conclusions and I agree in the order proposed by my learned brother. Venkatasubba Rao, J.

(2.) The land acquired is 6 acres 56 cents in extent and is in Cochin Town. The learned District Judge has very clearly set out in his judgment the situation of the land, and it is sufficient for the present purpose to say that it is close to Kalvetti densely covered with houses and that a tidal channel runs through it. On the west is the European quarter fronting the sea and on the north is the commercial land abutting on the back-water. The learned District Judge has proceeded on the assumption that the value of the land in the aforesaid two localities cannot furnish any basis for purposes of comparison and this has not been seriously attacked before us.

(3.) The main question, however is: is the value to be assessed on the footing that the land is agricultural, as has been done by the Deputy Collector, or is its adaptability for building purposes to be taken into consideration, as has been done by the District Judge? On behalf of the Government three witnesses were examined. The 1 witness, who is a Municipal Councillor, admits that on the acquired portion people have lived for a long time and that there were tiled dwelling houses. He, however, states that it is marshy and not fit for commercial purposes and that respectable people would not live there. The second witness says that, except for 60 feet breadth of the canal, the whole site is available for house building and admits that the most profitable way of developing the acquired land would be to deepen the channel and use the banks for ware-houses. He also says that respectable people would not live on the site, and the 3 witness similarly deposes that the land is not fit for mercantile purposes, that it is not healthy and that well-to-do people would not live there. The effect of the evidence is that the sanitary conditions are not satisfactory and that people, who can afford to live in more healthy surroundings or in more fashionable parts of the town, would not generally reside on the site acquired. The land has been acquired for building purposes and it is not disputed that, when it is reclaimed, it can be rendered suitable for house-sites.