Skip to content


Venkatachariar Vs. the Divisional Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.625
AppellantVenkatachariar
RespondentThe Divisional Officer
Excerpt:
land acquisition act (i of 1894), section 23 - compensation--matters to be determined in awarding it. - - 1. in this case a plot of land measuring 41 cents with a building, a well and trees thereon had been acquired by government. on the other hand, the land that has been acquired is a good building site and well situated......the claimant will suffer a loss of rs. 15 a month. the learned district judge, however, has not allowed compensation on that basis but on the basis that the loss will be only rs. 7-8 a month. the reason given by him is that a place for coffee-club will be available at a distance of about a furlong. but we do not think that he ought to have on this ground reduced the amount of compensation to the extent he has. according to the learned district judge's calculation, the figure he arrives at is rs. 1,350. we think we ought to increase it by another rs. 1,000 as fair compensation to the claimant for the loss of earnings.3. altogether, the decree will be modified by adding rs. 3,100 and 15 per cent on rs. 2,100 allowed in excess for the market-value of the land. the claimant will also be.....
Judgment:

1. In this case a plot of land measuring 41 cents with a building, a well and trees thereon had been acquired by Government. The land is very near to the Court buildings in Tinnevelly and the compensation allowed by the District Judge is Rs. 7,054 all told. Objection is taken by the appellant to the District Judge's award under two heads, that is, for the value of the site of the land and compensation for loss of earnings. The Deputy Collector's award for the land was Rs. 2,059, that is, at the rate of Rs. 50 a cent and the District Judge has allowed Rs. 770 only, that is, at the rate of about Rs. 19 a cant. We think that the decision of the Land Acquisition Judge is wrong on this point. He has apparently proceeded on the basis of a small piece of nanja land sold under Exhibit II which, as described in the evidence, is a triangular piece of land, low-lying and useless for cultivation and on which no building could be built unless the level was raised. On the other hand, the land that has been acquired is a good building site and well situated. It is in evidence that the claimant bought a piece of land measuring about 3 3/4 cents with a building thereon near the land in dispute and paid Rs. 800 for it. According to the evidence, the building is worth a little above Rs. 500. So the value of this land covered by Exhibit R is about Rs. 300 which works out at Rs. 70 a cant. The Deputy Collector gave Rs. 50 a cent. We allow Rs. 70 a cent on this site, that is to say, the District Judge's award under this head will be increased by Rs. 2,1X0.

2. Then, as regards the compensation for los3 of earnings, the evidence is that the claimant keeps a coffee-club which is patronised by the practitioners and the litigant public of Tinnevelly. The learned District Judge himself says that the claimant earns Rs. 60 a month on an average from this club and he finds that 25 per cent of this earning is due to the favourable locality in which the club is situate, that is to say, if this coffee-club is removed from its present situation, the claimant will suffer a loss of Rs. 15 a month. The learned District Judge, however, has not allowed compensation on that basis but on the basis that the loss will be only Rs. 7-8 a month. The reason given by him is that a place for coffee-club will be available at a distance of about a furlong. But we do not think that he ought to have on this ground reduced the amount of compensation to the extent he has. According to the learned District Judge's calculation, the figure he arrives at is Rs. 1,350. We think we ought to increase it by another Rs. 1,000 as fair compensation to the claimant for the loss of earnings.

3. Altogether, the decree will be modified by adding Rs. 3,100 and 15 per cent on Rs. 2,100 allowed in excess for the market-value of the land. The claimant will also be entitled to interest on the excess amount allowed at 6 per cent. per annum from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment. Each party will bear his own costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //