Scope for withdrawal of acquisition proceedings.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes in Land Case No. 22 of 1954, which was a claim by Express Newspapers Limited, against the Government represented by the Collector of Madras, under section 48 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The claim was rejected by the Court below except for an amount of Rs. 4,871-4-0 allowed as compensation payable for actual costs incurred by the claimant in connection with the acquisition. In view of the importance of the subject-matter, and as the research of learned counsel for the appellant (Sri K. V. Venkatasubramania Aiyar) and the learned Government Pleader has failed to bring to our attention any authorities directly bearing upon section 48 (2), or the principles with reference to which compensation should be assessed under that section, we propose to deal with the facts and the law at some length.

The broad facts are that the land or site bearing R.S. Nos. 315/2 and 315/3, measuring about 8 grounds and situated on the eastern boundary of the old Madras Club premises, abutting General Patters Road, was notified for acquisition under section 4 (1) of the Act on 30th September, 1948, as required for widening the Woods Road. On 4th November, 1948 the appellant (Express Newspapers Limited) intimated to Government (Exhibit R-2), in response to notices issued under sections 4(1) and 5 (A) of the Act, that there was no objection to the acquisition, provided that due compensation was allowed, including damages for severance. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was on 25th January, 1950. Under Exhibit R-7 dated 1st April, 1952, the appellant demanded damages, including Rs. 5,000 towards legal charges. The date of the notice under sections 9 and 10 of the Act is 26th April, 1952. Subsequently on 22nd January, 1954, it was decided to drop the acquisition proceedings (Exhibit C-10) in view of the cost, and the formal notification under section 48 (1) of the Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 10th March, 1954.

The claim of the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer, was for Rs. 8,10,871-4-0 made up of the following items: (1) damages for loss of income from the property, upon the most favourable outlay, during the pendency of acquisition Rs. 7,12, 500-00-0; (2) damages for construction of temporary accommodation, as building plans were held up due to the intended acquisition Rs. 87,500 ; (3) damages for actual expenses incurred Rs. 10,871-4-0. The total claim in Court was for Rs. 8,73,481-12-5 item (2) having swelled up to Rs. 1,50,110-8-5. The learned Judge negatived items 1 and 2, holding that the building plans appear to have been abandoned even prior to the section 4(1) notification, and that there was no credible evidence to substantiate the alleged loss of revenue. Upon item (2), the learned Judge held that the intended acquisition could not possibly have interfered with the construction for which the temporary building was substituted, and that the claim was unacceptable. With regard to the loss claimed for expenses (Rs. 10,871-4-0), an actual sum of Rs. 4,871-4-0 was allowed, as already stated. We shall hereafter refer, in due context, to certain particulars of the oral evidence, and documents which appellant was able to make available to Court, in support of the claim.

For the time being, we are concerned with the far more important question of principle. The crux of the question argued before us was whether, with reference to the language of section 48 (2) of the Act, the principles governing the assessment of Compensation for compulsory acquisition should be applied, mutatis mutandis, to cases of withdrawal from such acquisition. If those principles were applicable, how far could they be pressed into service in an assessment of compensation which would have to be inevitably and largely conjectural, was another question. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant (Sri K. V. Ve