Back
1939 Supreme(SC) 39
Privy Council At Peshawar
Mr. Jayakar, Sir George Rankin, Justice Lord Macmillan, JJ.
Hari Chand and others -Appellant
Versus
Secretary of State -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 39 of 1938
Decided On : 30-06-1939
India Office, T.L. Wilson and Co., Quintin Hogg, W. Wallach, J. Millard Tucker, S.P. Khambatta, A.M. Dunne
The court affirmed that the 'contractor's method' (reproduction cost minus depreciation) is a legitimate valuation principle for buildings. It also ruled that 'land' under the Land Acquisition Act includes buildings and that claimants must affirmatively prove title to receive compensation for the site.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Definition of 'land' - Acquisition of buildings on government land - Validity of notification - The expression 'land' includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth. Where the government is the owner of the site, a notification for the acquisition of buildings standing thereon is valid. An objection to the validity of such notification is not maintainable if the parties have already proceeded through the statutory procedure to the final determination of compensation.
(B) Compensation - Burden of proof - Title to land - A claimant seeking compensation must establish their title to the property affirmatively.
(C) Valuation of buildings - Contractor's method - The method of fixing value by ascertaining the costs of reproducing the building at the present time, allowing for depreciation based on age and necessary repairs, is a recognized and legitimate principle for valuing buildings for compensation. This method is not affected by a resumption notice.
(D) Compensation for appurtenances - Amenities such as roads, pathways, gardens, and trees associated with the enjoyment of a building on land held under precarious tenure (subject to resumption) are associated with the site rather than the building. If compensation is restricted to the value of the buildings, no additional allowance for such amenities is warranted.
Facts of the case:
The government exercised its power of resumption over several properties held under specific tenure conditions, which allowed resumption upon notice subject to payment for authorized buildings. After compensation offers were rejected, the government invoked the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire the buildings on sites it claimed to own. The claimants challenged the validity of the acquisition notification, their title to the sites, the method of valuation used, and the exclusion of appurtenances from the compensation.
Findings of Court:
The notification was valid as 'land' includes buildings. The claimants failed to affirmatively establish title to the sites. The contractor's method of valuation is legitimate and unaffected by the resumption notice. Amenities like gardens and trees are linked to the site, not the building, and thus not compensable when only the building is being acquired.
Issues: Whether a notification for the acquisition of only buildings on government-owned land is valid under the Land Acquisition Act; whether the contractor's method of valuation is appropriate; and whether appurtenances should be included in the compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'land' is broad enough to cover buildings, and the contractor's method of reproduction cost minus depreciation is a valid principle for valuation. Furthermore, the burden of proving title lies with the claimant, and amenities associated with the site are not compensable if the site is already government property.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
land acquisition
-
compensation
- valuation methods
- appurtenances
-
statutory interpretation
- definition of land
-
compensation
-
land acquisition
-
property law
-
title
- burden of proof
-
title
Lord Macmillan:-
Their Lordships are invited in these 12 consolidated appeals to reconsider a number of awards made by way of compensation for the acquisition by the Government of certain bungalows in the Cantonment of Peshawar. In the Courts below a large number of questions were raised and debated in relation to the awards, but before their Lordships, Mr. Dunne, on behalf of the appellants, confined himself to two or three main issues. As a matter of history the Cantonments are regulated, so far as regards grants to individuals, by an Order of the Governor-General in Council dated so far back as 1836. That Order appears to have been carried forward to date by a series of subsequent Orders more or less identical in their terms. Where the Government grant any rights to individuals within the area of the Cantonments, one of the cardinal conditions of the grant is that the Government retain the power of resumption at any time on giving one month's notice. If they give that notice they are required to pay the value of such buildings as may have been authorized to be erected. In this case the Government proposed to resume 12 or 13 of properties originally granted out, and they issued notifications of resumption, of which there is an example in the case of appellant 1 Hari Chand's property. It runs as follows :
Whereas the land comprising the site of the property known as Bungalow No. 5, Fort Road, Peshawar Cantonment, belongs to Government and is held by you on Cantonment tenure under which Government are entitled to resume the said land subject to paying the value of such buildings as may have been authorized to be erected thereon; And whereas Government have decided to resume possession of the said land and to obtain possession of the buildings standing thereon: Take notice therefore that Government will under all powers enabling them in that behalf through their Agent on 15th October 1932 resume possession of the said land and your occupation and any rights, easements and interests you may have in the said land and the buildings thereon shall cease as from that date.
The notification also contained an offer of compensation. Apparently none of those to whom the notices were addressed was satisfied with the offer, and while the natural and ordinary course would have been to proceed to arbitration for the purpose of assessing the compensation, for some reason or other that course does not seem to have been pursued or to have been acceptable to the parties, and the Government accordingly resorted to the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for the purpose of expropriating the owners of the bungalows on the terms of that Statute. Accordingly a notification was served on each of the proprietors of the bungalows, and in the recital of each notification it is set out that the Government claimed to be the owners of the land upon which the various bungalows and outhouses had been erected. That is set out as a matter of narrative in the notification. Then it proceeds to state that the Government have given notice that the land has been resumed by them and that they are desirous now of acquiring the buildings thereon and any other outstanding interest therein, and for that purpose they invoke the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
The first point taken here has been that the notification was bad because it was not a notification for the acquisition of the land, but a notification of an intention to acquire only buildings on the land. It was said that the Land Acquisition Act only authorized notification of an intention to acquire land and therefore that the whole proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were fundamentally bad because the notification upon which the proceedings started was invalid. It has to be noticed however that in the Land Acquisition Act the expression 'land' includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.
In the present case the Gove
