Kathiravelu V. Urban District Council

1926  Present: Branch C.J. and Maartensz A.J.

KATHIEAVALU et al v. URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL,JAFFNA.

214-D. C. Jaffna, 18,463-

    Urban District Council-Acquisition of land-Cutting a drain across  plaintiffs1 land-Compensation-Enhanced value of land-Ordinance No. 11 of 1920, s. 116.

Where an Urban District Council, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 116 of Ordinance No. 11 of 1920, cut a channel across plaintiffs' land,-

Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim the value of the land taken up by the channel by way of compensation.

The enhanced value accruing to plaintiffs' other land by the cutting of the channel should not be taken into consideration) in assessing the compensation payable to the plaintiffs.

THE plaintiffs sued the Jaffna Urban District Council to recover damages in respect of the action of the Council in cutting a drain across their land. The claim arose from a drain being cut, in exercise of the power vested in the Council by section 116 of the Local Government Ordinance, No. 11 of 1920, in pursuance of a flood outlet scheme to prevent the land in and around Jaffna being flooded during rainy weather. The action was tried on the following issues :-

(1) Had the Council any right to cut a drain through plaintiffs' lands without having first acquired the necessary land, paying value and damages ?

(2) Was it necessary for the defendant Council to deepen the water-course ?

(3) Could not the defendant Council have constructed the channel alongside the public road without causing as much damage to the public ?

(4) What sum, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to claim by way of damages ?

The learned District Judge answered the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd issues in favour of the Council, and his findings were not challenged in appeal. The argument in appeal was limited to the question whether plaintiffs were entitled, by way of compensation, to the

value of the land taken up by the drain, and whether the Council  was entitled to set off against such value the increase in value of
plaintiffs' other land resulting from the cutting of the channel.

Hayley (with 8. Rajaratnam), for plaintiffs, appellants.

Allan Drieberg, K. C. (with N. K. Choksy), for defendant, respondent.

Rajaratnam (in reply).

March 30, 1926. BRANCH C.J.-

The question that arises for decision in this case is what compensation, if any, is payable to the plaintiffs under section 116 of Ordinance No. 11 of 1920 in respect of the action of the Jaffna Urban District Council in making a drain across the plaintiffs' land.

Section 116 above referred to provides that every District Council may make such drains, sewers, and water-courses as may be judged necessary for the effectual draining of any area within its administrative limits, and, if needful, may carry them through, across, or under any street, and, after due notice, into, through, or under any enclosure or other lands whatever, doing as little damage as may be, and making compensation for any damage done. Under section 225 the District Council may make compensation out of the local funds to all persons sustaining any damage by reason of the exercise of any of the powers vested in the Council. Section 222 names the Court which is to ascertain and determine the amount of the damages payable.

Mr. Hayley for the appellants said that but for Roderick v. Aston Local Board1[1 (1877) 5 Ch. Div. 328-] he would have taken the point that the Council could not carry a drain " across " the appellants' land, but he cited the case as bearing in other respects on the questions involved.

The case went to trial on the following issues :-

(1) Had defendant Council any right to cut a drain through plaintiffs' land without having first acquired the necessary land, paying value and damages ?

(2) Was it necessary for defendant Council to deepen the water course as shown in preliminary trace as was do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document