Determination of question as to assessment and adequacy.

This appeal raised a question of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. At the instance of the Collector, Central Excise, Madras, parts of S. Nos. 15 and 17 of Nellimukku, a proprietary village in the Vizianagaram Estate have been acquired by Government for the extension of the Salt Factory, Balacheruvu. The total extent acquired was 229 acres, 59 cents. The notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 29th August,, 1944 and that under section 6 was issued on 6th March, 1945. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12-8-0 per acre totalling an amount of Rs. 2,869-14-0. Adding a sum of Rs. 430-7-8 towards 15 percent. solatium for compulsory acquisition, he awarded a sum of Rs. 3,300-5-8. On a reference made to the Subordinate Judge, he increased the rate of compensation to Rs.25 an acre. On that basis, he has given additional compensation of Rs. 2,869-14-0 and also 15 per cent, solatium on the said amount. The claimant preferred the above appeal claiming Rs. 65,000 including the statutory solatium of 15 per cent.

The simple question in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Subordinate Judge is inadequate and, if so, whether the appellant is entitled to the whole or part of the amount claimed by him.

Before we consider the evidence, it will be convenient at this stage to notice the law on the subject. The principles for fixing the compensation are governed by sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. The general principles specified in the said sections differ in no material respect from those laid down by English decisions. There are innumerable decisions of the Enghlish and Indian Courts but it will suffice if two decisions of the Judicial Committee, relevant to the present enquiry are cited. In Vallabhadas Naranji v. The Collector1, the land acquired was an irregularly shaped piece by the sea and was covered by the tide at various times and for ordinary purposes was practically useless. It was, however, capable of being used for salt works. There is nothing on record to show that there were any salt-pans adjacent to the land acquired or there was a demand for the said land for salt manufacture. The Assistant Judge of Thana awarded Rs. 200 per acre. The High Court reduced it to Rs. 14 per acre. Viscount Dunedin made the following observations in assessing the value of the said land as follows:

“What it really comes to is this: This land is absolutely worthless in itself, but it has no doubt a potentiality of being used for salt works and therefore the owner is entitled to the market value of that potentiality.”

The only evidence adduced was that in one case some people had spent 7 lakhs of rupees on salt works and had not made them pay at all but hoped at the end of ten years they possibly would pay. On that evidence, it was held by the High Court that it would not pay anybody to pay for land of that sort even if they were going to construct salt works upon it, more than the value as waste land. This conclusion was accepted by the Privy Council. A more elaborate and, if I may say so, instructive discussion on the question is found in Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapathiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam2. In that case, a harbour was being constructed at Vizagapatam. The 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 appellant’s 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 appellant’s 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 gave compensation on the bas