The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the special adaptability of the land for building purposes in fixing the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the proceedings instituted for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded in respect of the acquisition by the Government of 50 acres 75 cents of land situate in the town of Rajahmundry. The land was acquired for the construction of the Government Arts and Training Colleges at Rajahmundry. There were disputes as regards ownership of the land. Claimant 1 is the adopted son of K.V. Krishnayya who admittedly was the owner of the property and who was in possession. Claimant 2 is a reversioner who disputed the adoption. He succeeded in the Subordinate Judges Court but in appeal the High Court upheld the adoption and claimant 1 was declared to be entitled to the estate. This judgment of the High Court was affirmed by their Lordships of the Privy Council so that the person now entitled to the property is claimant 1.

2. The Government notified its intention to acquire the property on the 19th July 1921. On that day the claimant 2 had obtained a decree in his favour in the Sub-Court and the appeal in the High Court was pending. The decree of the Subordinate Judge in favour of the claimant 2 was on the 29th April 1921. It was reversed by the High Court on the 18th October 1922 and the judgment of the High Court was affirmed by their Lordships of the Privy Council on the 23rd June 1925. [K. Venkata Seetharama Chandra Row v. K. Venkata Krishna Row vide A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 201-Ed.] The order of the land acquisition officer fixing the compensation was on the 6th November 1921 and the application for reference was made on the 18th November 1921.

3. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned Government pleader that an appeal by the claimant 1 would not lie as he did not apply for a reference to the District Court under Section 13, Land Acquisition Act, the application having been made by claimant 2. I do not think this objection is tenable. At the date of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimant 2 was the person who was declared by the Subordinate Judge to be entitled to the property and who prima facie was the person entitled to apply. He was the person interested within the meaning of Section 18(1) Land Acquisition Act 1, 1894. I am of opinion that where during the pendency of a suit or appeal a person who had a decree in his favour and who was prima facie entitled to the property institutes or defends proceedings in respect of property sought to be acquired, the proceedings can be continued by the person who ultimately succeeds in the litigation. Any order passed in respect of the property would enure for the benefit of the successful litigant and he is the person who on the reversal of the judgment of the lower Court would be entitled to continue the proceedings.

4. As regards Survey No. 119-B-2 the suit by claimant 2 was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge and claimant No. 1 who ultimately succeeded was the per-son who was entitled to that item and it is clear from the record that there is no valid reference as regards that item. As regards the remaining items, I think the 1st claimant is entitled to appeal against the award.

5. Turning to the merits, the only question is whether the District Judge was right in treating the land sought to be acquired as agricultural land and fixing the compensation on that basis. The land sought to be acquired is situate within the municipal limits of the town of Rajamundry and it appears from the evidence and the plan produced that it is abutted on one side by the Gokavaram Road and on the other by another road. The District Judge in para. 5 of his judgment deals with the various sale-deeds produced. He is of opinion that one rupee a square yard may be taken as the value of building sites on the side of the Gokavaram Road in 1921 at the time of the proposed, acquisition of the land in dispute. This finding is amply borne out by the evidence and the sale-deed produced by the witnesses. I do not think the District Judge was right