GOVERNMENT AGENT v. PERERA.

GOVERNMENT AGENT v. PERERA.

 D. C., Colombo, 2,203.

(The " Mount Mary " Case.)

Land Acquisition Ordinance-Ordinance No. 3 of 1876-Acquisition for public purpose-Finality of Governor's decision-Jurisdiction of District Court to revise Governor's decision-Sufficient and proper compensation-Standards of valuation-Market value.

    In the acquisition of a private land for a public purpose the Governor is not bound to take the report of the Surveyor-General as to its fitness for such purpose.

    His decision on the question whether a land is needed or not for a public purpose is final, and the District Court has no power to entertain objections to His Excellency's decisions.

    Of the several tests by which the market value of a land may be arrived at, one of the truest and fairest is the actual amount paid for a similar allotment of land in the same vicinity about the time of the acquisition.

    IN this land acquisition case the Government Agent of the Western Province (Mr. G. M. Fowler), upon receiving the order of the Governor to acquire an allotment of land situate in Maradana, Colombo, and the house standing thereon, called " Mount Mary," assessed the value thereof and tendered to its owner, Mr. James Perera, the defendant, Rs. 39,750, as sufficient and proper compensation therefor, under section 8 of the Ordinance No. 3 of 1876. As the owner declined the amount tendered, the Government Agent brought the money into Court and prayed the District Court of Colombo to inquire into and determine the amount of compensation to be paid by him.

    The owner pleaded that the land was not required for a public purpose; that the sum of Rs. 39,750 was not tendered to him; and that that amount was not sufficient and proper compensation. He claimed Rs. 67,500.

    On behalf of the Government Agent three methods of valuation were proved. The first method was by assessing the land and house. It was shown that the land itself was not all of one kind: 21/2| acres of it were flat and good, and the remaining three were partly scooped out for gravel, partly hilly, and partly sloping. The 21/2 acres of good land were valued at Rs. 7,000 per acre and the remaining land at Rs. 3,000 per acre, and the house was sworn to be buildable for about Rs. 12,000. The total value of the house and land thus arrived at was Rs. 39,750. The second method of valuation was by capitalizing the rent. It was shown

that the rent of the house was Rs. 1,200 a year. At four per cent., which was the rate allowed by the English banks on fixed deposits, Rs. 1,200 would represent a capital of Rs. 30,000, so that, if this method of valuation were accepted, the Government Agent would appear to have allowed Rs. 9,750 too much. The third method of valuation was according to the prices paid for similar lands in the vicinity. It was proved that " Karlsruhe," which includes a commodious house and about 5 acres of ground, situated next adjoining " Mount Mary," was offered by its owner to the Government for Rs. 40,000 and was declined.

    The learned District Judge, after hearing evidence for the plaintiff and defendant, and considering the opinions of the assessors nominated by each of the parties, held that the amount tendered by the plaintiff was sufficient and proper compensation, and dismissed the defendants claim with costs.

    The defendant appealed. The appeal was heard on 9th March, 1903.

    Dornhorst, K. C, (with him Elliott), for the appellant. The principles upon which the Court will exercise its jurisdiction over bodies to which the Parliament has given powers of making compulsory purchases of land were settled in Webb. v. Manchester Railway Company, 4 M. & C. 117. The Lord Chancellor observed that it was his duty to see whether this transaction was a bona fide proceeding upon the powers given by the Act, or whether it was a mere colour to cover another object; the powers giv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document