Judgement

Appeal (No. 36 of 1938) from a decree of the High Court (May 4, 1937) which reversed an award of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam on a reference under the Land Acquisition Act (September 11, 1933).

Law. Rep. 66 Ind. App. 104 ( 1938- 1939) Raja Vyricherla Narayana v. Revenue Divisional Officer

23

A harbour was being constructed at Vizagapatam. Land acquired by the harbour authorities on the south of the harbour was allocated by them to oil companies and other industrial concerns. This land was malarious.

The appellants land, which was to the south of this land, contained a spring which yielded a constant and abundant supply of good drinking water which could easily be made available for the oil companies and people engaged in the harbour works.

The appellants land was acquired for the purpose of the execution of anti-malarial works.

The appellant claimed compensation on the footing of the potentialities of the land as a building site. The Land Acquisition Officer disallowed this claim and awarded compensation on a valuation of the land as partly waste and partly cultivated with an allowance for some buildings and trees.

On the appellants application, the matter was, under the Act, referred to the Subordinate Judge. Before him the appellant made a further claim on the footing of potentialities as a source of water supply.

The Subordinate Judge held that the water could be sold to the oil companies and others at a profit, that the only possible buyers were the oil companies and the harbour authorities and that compensation for potentialities could be awarded, even where the only possible buyer is the acquiring authority, and he assessed the value of the potentialities and made his award accordingly. He found against the potentialities of the land as a building site.

On appeal, the High Court set aside the award of the Subordinate Judge and restored that of the Land Acquisition Officer, holding that the supply of drinking water had no value apart from the scheme for which the acquisition was made and the Harbour Authorities were the only possible purchasers, and that the land had no potentialities as a building site.

The facts are more fully stated in the judgment of their Lordships.

1938. Nov. 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22. Lionel Cohen K.C., P. V. Subba Row and K. Umameshwaram for the appellant referred to ss. 3, 4, 5 (a), 7, 9, 11, 15 to 19, 23 to 25, 31, sub-s. 2, and s. 53 of the Land Acquisition Act and the facts which led to the acquisition of the land in question and submitted In assessing the value of land, its potentialities must be taken into consideration, We are now concerned with the potentialities of the land in question only as a source of water supply, there being concurrent findings against its potentialities in other respects. This land was not included in the original harbour scheme in 1920. That is a fact which should be taken into consideration. A supply of water was wanted in connection with an anti-malarial scheme on the south of the harbour. This land held the only available source of supply on the south. It could give a constant supply of good drinking water at a comparatively small cost. A scheme to bring water from the north had been considered and abandoned on account of its prohibitive cost. The water supply from this land would be available for the oil companies and other concerns that might be established on the south of the harbour as well as the anti-malarial scheme. The special adaptability or potentialities of the land in these circumstances should be taken into account in assessing the " market value " which is the value to the owner Swarna Manjuri Dassi v. Secretary of State for India. (( 1927) I. L. R. 55 Cal. 994.) Not merely the present value, but potentialities must be considered Mohini Mohan Banerjee v. Secretary of State for India (( 1921) 25 C. W. N. 1002.); In re Gough and The Aspatria, Silloth and District Joint Water Board ([ 1903] 1 K. B. 574.) and on appeal. ([ 1904] 1 K. B.