RAJASEKHARA AND Vs. CHAIRMAN CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD MYSORE CITY
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHAIRMAN, CITY IMPROVEMENT TRUST BOARD, MYSORE CITY
Referred Judgements :-
RAJAMMAL V. HEADQUARTERS DEPUTY COLLECTOR,VALLORE
LACHMAN PRASAD V. SECY. OF STATE
KARACHI MUNICIPALITY V. NARAINDAS
SWARNAMANJURI DASSI VS. SECYOF STATE
Click here to view full judgement.
Venkataramaiya, C.J. -
(1.)Both these appeals under the Land Acquisition Act in which parties are the same may be disposed of by one order The only point for consideration is the amount payable as compensation. The properties are buildings situated in Mysore near Sayyaji Rao Road at the extremity of Lansdown Buildings. One case relates to those numbered by the Municipality as 77 to 83 and the other to what bore the number 83/1. The claim regarding the latter for increasing the amount paid by the lower Court may be first dealt with. This is said to have been a residential building facing a lane behind a row of shops. The structure was old. Its doors and windows were in a decayed condition and at the time of acquisition was not in occupation of any one but used as a godown. The lover court has accepted the value of this at Rs. 925/- but increased the value of the ground from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 10/- per square yard. This appears to be fair and appellant's counsel has not pointed out anything to hold it otherwise. R.A. No. 142 of 51-52 is therefore dismissed with costs.
(2.)The shops bearing Municipal Nos. 77 to 83 stand on a different footing. It is found that Rs. 150/- are realised as rent from the shops and rooms which are let out and for those retained Tor use of the owners only, Rs. 10/- were fixed as rent though Rs. 20/- were claimed. The learned Judge capitalised the rent by deducting from the annual realisation at this rate a quarter of it as being reouived for repairs and taxes and multiplying the balance by 18. He also valued the land and the building separately on the basis of estimates of cost by Engineer and struck the average between the total of these and the amount on the basis of rent. Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar on behalf of the court-guardian of the minor claimant contended that this is not a fair or appropriate assessment of the value. Section 23 requires that the first thing to be taken into account in determining compensation is the market value of the property at the time of the notification. The expression "Market value" is not defined in the Act and it has to be ascertained by the Court in each case with due regard to the conditions of the time and factors which affect transactions between a willing seller and intending buyer. In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate.
(3.)A recognised basis of valuation of buildings in urban areas is the rent normally realised by those when these are leased to others and the rent expected to be got if these are in occupation of the owners. As has been said in some cases such as Karachi Municipality v. Naraindas, AIR 1933 Sind 57 (A) and Govt. ot Bombay v. Merwanji Mun-cherji Cama, 10 Bom LR 907 (B) and in re, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, 10 Bom Lr 701 (C), the valuation of a land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of the one to the other does not furnish a reliable estimate of the property. In a growing town where demand for shops or building to carry on business is increasing and there is certainty of income if leased out, the rental value is treated as important and an index to the market value of the property. See Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy. of State, Am 1928 Cal 622 (D); Lachman Prasad v. Secy. of State, ILR 43 All 652: (AIR 1921 All 402) (E) Rajammal v. Headquarters Deputy Collector, Vallore, 25 Ind Cas 393 : (AIR 1915 Mad 356 (2) (P); Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy, of State, ILR 29 Bom 514 (G).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.