Pretheroe J:

By Notification No. 103 published in the Gazette of 23 June 1949, the Resident Commissioner of the Settlement of Malacca intimated that the plots numbered 1012 and 1015 respectively in the Mukim of Alai in the said Settlement were needed for a public purpose.Plot No. 1015 is regular in shape and has a frontage on the east side of the main Malacca-Singapore Road of approximately eighty yards and is situate near the 4'bc milestone from Malacca.The second, and smaller, plot adjoins the larger plot but is some distance back from the above- mentioned road. A bungalow of substantial proportions stands on the larger plot facing the road.The rest of that plot is covered by a grove of coconut palms and there are twenty-four fruit trees on the smaller plot.

The procedure prescribed by the Land Acquisition Ordinance was duly followed and, under s. 10(1) (c) of the Ordinance, the Collector of Land Revenue assessed the compensation to be allowed as follows:

Forlot 1012 ... ... ... $132.81

Forlot 1015 ... ... ... $595

Forthe building on lot 1015 ... ... ... $300

227227227227227227

Total... $1,027.81

227227227227227227

The owner of the properties declined to accept this amount as compensation on the ground that "the amount of compensation is wholly inadequate" and "required" the Collector of Land Revenue to refer the matter for the determination of this Court under s. 18 of the Ordinance.The reference was duly made and came before the Court on 13 January last.On the evening of that day, accompanied by Mr. Sault, Counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Shepherd, Federal Counsel, I viewed the properties.The hearing of the evidence was concluded on 6 March last.

At the hearing a substantial amount of evidence was led which had not been made available to the Collector.Doubtless he was entirely unaware of certain factors which have an important bearing on the assessment of the compensation properly due to the applicant.

Paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of s. 25 of the Ordinance provides that the amount of compensation to be awarded shall be the market value of properties at the date of the publication in the Gazette of the notification of the intention to acquire the said properties.In this case the date of publication of that notice (hereinafter referred to as the "material date") was 23 June 1949.But there was complete conflict of opinion as to the method to be adopted to ascertain the "market value".

Sub-section (1) of s. 25 of the Land Acquisition Ordinance is the same as sub-section (1) of s. 23 of the Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1894, except that the latter contains an additional paragraph relating to standing crops and trees, and that subsection of the Indian Act was considered by the Privy Council in Sri Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju Bahadur Guru v. Revenue Dival Officer, Vizagapatam [1939] 2 All ER 317.In this judgment I have endeavoured to follow the principles established by that case.

I Will, in the first place, consider the market value of the land comprised in the two plots and will then consider separately the market value of the bungalow.Mr. Sault contended that plot No. 1015, or at any rate the front portion of that plot, should be valued as building land while Mr. Shepherd supported the Collector's view that it is agricultural land and should be valued as such.At present there are, and on the material date there were, a few shop houses having at tap roofs and also a Police Station quite close to the plots in question.Otherwise the area is sparsely dotted with Malay type houses and is a rural area similar to many other parts of the Settlement.Mr. Sault submitted that plot No. 1015 was suitable for building purposes and was situate only slightly more than four miles from the centre of Malacca Town.It faces the main Singapore road and is less than one hundred yards from the junction of that road with the Malacca - Jasin road.As regular omnibus services use both these roads Mr. Sault submitted that access to