Valuation of immovable property for compensation.

These are two connected appeals arising from the order and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O.P. No. 143 of 1951.

S. Nos. 386/1-A, 368/1-B, 386/1C-1, 389/9A-1, 389/9-A-2 389/9B-1 and 389/9B-2, Government-dry, totalling Ac. 1-51 cents in extent situate in Melur village, have been acquired for use as a playground for the Roman Catholic Mission School in Melur.

The site had been inspected by the learned Subordinate Judge with the counsel for both parties. The site is a contiguous plot lying immediately south of the MelurSivaganga road. It is at the end of the habitations commencing from the bazaar street. West of it are houses at a distance of half a furlong and a cinema theatre. On the northern side of the Melur-Sivaganga road and opposite to the site acquired there are houses and in particular, one belonging to R.W. 1. That site is however within the Melur Panchayat limits. There is a Panchayat Board well at its northwestern corner. South of the acquired site is Periyar branch channel and south of that channel is the R.C. School which is a small building with a plantain garden on the east and on the other three sides punja lands and gardens.

The Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 28th March, 1950 and the draft declaration was published on 29th August, 1950. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on the foot of Rs. 7-12-0 per cent.

The claimants who have asked for this reference claimed Rs. 150 per cent. The learned Subordinate Judge awarded compensation exclusive of solatium at Rs. 45 per cent.

The short point for determination is whether this valuation by the learned Subordinate Judge deserves to be revised.

There is nothing secret or mysterious about the value of land. It is a commodity commonly dealt in, and like every other commodity it has a price which can be ascertained within certain limits. This price, however, constantly varies according to the variations of the supply and demand and it is impossible to fix it at any given time with mathematical accuracy. Valuation of immovable property is not an exact science. It is an enquiry relating to a subject abounding in uncertainties, where there is more than ordinary guess work and where it would be very unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for the conclusions arrived at. It has been held repeatedly that in all valuations, judicial or otherwise, there must be room for inference and inclinations of opinion which being more or less conjectural are difficult to reduce to exact reasoning or to explain to others and it is unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for the conclusions arrived at. In short, the question of fair compensation is not an algebraic problem which would be solved by an abstract formula: Assistant Development Office, Trombay v. Tayak Alia1, Secretary of State v. Charlesworth Pillay & Co.2, Secretary of State v. Altaf Hussan3, Secretary of State v. Amulya Charan4, Naoroji v. Government of Bombay5, Secretary of State v. Gobind Ram6, Amrit Lal Bysak v. Secretary of State.7

Certain methods of valuation have however been recognised by the various judicial decisions, viz.: (a) the price paid, within a reasonable time for the land; (b) rents and profits of the land received shortly before the acquisition; (c) price paid for adjacent lands possessing similar advantages and (d) the opinion of valuators or experts. Munji Khetsey, In re8, Fink v. Secretary of State9, Farman v. Secretary of State10, Land Acquisition Officer v. Fakir11.

In this case on account of the fact that dry lands cultivated as such have been acquired as building sites method (b) is inapplicable. In regard to method (d) in this State opinion of valuators and experts is not normally adduced.

In this case the property in question has been purchased under Exhibits B-13 and B-14, dated 20th March, 1942. Exhibit B-13 is a sale deed executed by P.W. 1, in favour of claimants 6 an