Assistant Government Agent V. Abdul Rahiman

1926 Present: Dalton and Lyall Grant JJ.

ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT AGENT v. ABDUL RAHIMAN.

81-(Inty.) D. C. Kandy, 315.

Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance, No. 19 of 1915, s. 49- Land covered by building-Dedication-Land Acquisition Ordinance, No. 3 of 1876-Compensation-Sections 21, 22, and 23.

Where land covered with buildings and other land, within the lines of a back lane, scheme, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Ordinance for the purpose of executing an improvement under the Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance.

Held, the owner was entitled to compensation for all the land acquired and that the Crown had no right to claim the benefit of section 49 of the Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance.

FOR the purpose of the execution of a back lane scheme in the town of Kandy, under the provisions of the Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance, it became necessary to acquire an extent of land 4.57 perches in area. The Assistant Government Agent, acting in pursuance of the mandate issued to him by the Governor, proceeded to take order for the compulsory acquisition of the said lot, and offered a sum of Rs. 2,300 as compensation for the building on the land, the site on which the building stood, and certain coconut trees. The bare land itself was excluded from the assessment. A reference to the District Court of Kandy under the Land Acquisition Ordinance followed. The matter for determination by the District Judge was, whether or not the defendant's claim to compensation for the bare land was well-founded. Compensation was awarded in respect of only half the bare land. Both parties appealed from this order. In appeal the defendant was declared entitled to full compensation for the bare land.

M. W. H. de Silva, C.C., for plaintiff, appellant.

Keuneman, for defendant, respondent.

September 8, 1926. DALTON J.-

This case raises questions as to compensation payable on the compulsory acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Ordinance, 1876, and the Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance, 1915.

The District Judge has awarded to defendant the sum of Rs. 3,758, and costs, as compensation for the acquisition of his land. From that award both plaintiff and defendant have appealed. The reference to the District Court by the Assistant Government Agent (who is termed the plaintiff in these proceedings) sets out that the

Governor under, the provisions of section 6 of the Land Acquisition . Ordinance, by mandate dated October 22, 1924, directed the plaintiff to take order for the acquisition of certain land described as lot government 16 within the Municipal limits of Kandy and of the extent of 4.57 perches or thereabouts. The boundaries of the land are fully set out, but it is not necessary to repeat them here. Thereupon the plaintiff took action, under section 7 of the Ordinance, reciting the order for the acquisition of the land and declaring the intention of the Government to take possession of the land which was required for a public purpose, " namely, for the execution of the back lane scheme sanctioned by His Excellency the Governor in Executive Council." The reference further sets out that as the plaintiff was unable to agree with the person interested (called Abdul Rahiman Saibo, the defendant) the amount of compensation to be allowed, he referred the matter to the District Court under the provisions of section 11 of the Ordinance. The amount tendered by the plaintiff for the land and the premises under section 8 of the Ordinance was set out as Rs. 2,300, but this was not accepted by the defendant. The prayer of the reference is that- " The court will, pursuant to the directions and provisions to the effect contained in the said Ordinance No. 3 of 1876, proceed to inquire and determine the amount of such compensation . , . . "

Filed with the reference are two documents, the first being a letter of October 22, 1924, to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document