TMI Blog1958 (11) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ternity Home at Malleswaram, Bangalore City, into a Maternity Hospital. There were eight owners interested in the property acquired, out of whom two objected to the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, now appellant before us. One of these two was T. Adinarayana Shetty, a diamond merchant of Mysore City. Originally, he was the respondent before us, and on his death his son and legal representative has been brought into the record as the sole respondent to this appeal. The deceased respondent Adinarayana Setty (hereinafter called the respondent) was interested in 48,404 sq. yards out of the total area, and it may be stated here that there is no dispute before us that out of the said 48,404 sq. yards an area of about 3,000 sq. yards consists of land which has been variously characterised as a depression or a pit or low-lying land (called 'halla' in the local vernacular language). Out of the total amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, a sum of ₹ 1,41,169/was awarded to the respondent. The Special Land Acquisition Officer proceeded on the following basis for his award. Firstly, he found that the land value in and around Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or approximately a sum of I ₹ 10,000/-. In other words, the learned Additional District Judge increased the compensation in favour of the respondent by a sum of about ₹ 20,000/-. Not being satisfied, the respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court of, Mysore. The learned Judges of the High Court found that the proper compensation for the land,. except the portion characterised as low-lying, should be ₹ 13/8/per sq. yard and as to the low-lying portion it should be reduced by ₹ 51- per sq. yard inasmuch as a sum of ₹ 15,000/- was necessary, according to the evidence given in the case, for filling it up; in other words, the High Court awarded compensation at the rate of ₹ 8/8/- per sq. yard for the low-lying land. The High Court also reduced the area which had to be deducted for making roads, etc., according to the layout scheme from 26,248 sq. yards to 12,101 sq. yards. It also reduced the layout charges to ₹ 64,432/-. The High Court added to the compensation a sum of ₹ 7,000/- as the value of a building which the respondent had constructed on one of the sites on the finding that the construction was made prior to the preliminary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this Court has no doubt adopted the practice that it will not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact, but this Court has no such established practice as was adopted by the Privy Council in valuation cases even where a difference of opinion has occurred between two courts upon the number of rupees per yard to be allowed for a plot of land. He has further submitted that the reasons for the practice adopted by the Privy Council do not apply with equal force to this Court. In view of the facts of this case and the opinion which we have formed after hearing learned counsel for both parties, we do not think it necessary to make any final pronouncement as to the practice which this Court should adopt in a valuation case where two courts have differed. We are content to proceed in this case on the footing that we should not interfere unless there is something to show, not merely that on the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion, but that the judgment cannot be supported by reason of a wrong application of principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. We are satisfied that there is no erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een built. We have taken these circumstances into consideration, but do not think that the conclusion which learned counsel for the respondent wishes us to draw follows therefrom. First of all, it is by no means clear that the sales of the building sites at the low rate of ₹ 6-8-0 or thereabout appertained to the low-lying land only, and, secondly, the mere circumstance that some buildings have been made on land opposite the low-lying lands but on the other side of the road, does not necessarily mean that the low-lying lands are as valuable as the other land in the area. We are therefore of the view that the compensation fixed by the High Court for the low-lying land is not vitiated by any error of the kind which will justify our interference with it. We now proceed to consider the third and main point urged on behalf of the appellant, namely, the rate of 13/8 per sq. yard for the other land in the area. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the High Court has committed two fundamental errors in arriving at this finding. Furthermore, the High Court has been influenced by extraneous considerations such as the purpose for which the land was acquired, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes secured by him are ₹ 12, 15, 14 and 7/8 which on calculation give an average of ₹ 12/2 per sq. yard . Why the transaction of May 15, 1945, which was at a rate of ₹ 6/8 per sq. yard only was left out it is difficult to understand. Similarly, the transaction of July 18, 1945, was at the rate of ₹ 10 per sq. yard. That also was left out. We are of the view that this arbitrary selection of four transactions only out of six has vitiated the finding of the High Court. If all the six transactions of sale are taken into consideration, the average rate comes to about ₹ 10/13 per sq. yard only. Having arbitrarily discarded two of the transactions, the learned Judges of the High Court committed another error in taking a second average. Having arrived at an average of ₹ 12/2 per sq. yard from the four transactions referred to above, they again took a second average between ₹ 15, which was the maximum price obtained by the respondent, and ₹ 12/2. Having struck this second average, the learned Judges of the High Court arrived at the figure of ₹ 13/8. No sound reasons have been given why this second average was struck except the extraneou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
