Chairman, Municipal Council, Colombo V. Fonseka, Et Al.,

1936 Present : Abrahams C.J. and Koch J.

CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, COLOMBO v.
FONSEKA et al.

9-D. C. (Inty.) Colombo, 2,898.

Land acquisition-Land acquired by Crown within Municipal limits-Street lines laid over building land-Depreciation of land-Compensation Ordinance, No. 19 of 1915, s. 18 (4), and Ordinance No. 3 of 1876, s. 22.

Where street lines have been laid down under section 18 (1) of the Housing and Town Improvement Ordinance, No. 19 of 1915, in respect of land abutting a public street, and the land is subsequently acquired by the Crown by directions issued to the Chairman of the Municipal Council,-

Held, that in determining the amount of compensation to be paid the fact that the land has ceased to be building land may be taken into consideration.

THIS was an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Colombo determining the amount of compensation payable to the respondents in respect of the acquisition of an allotment of land belonging to them situate at Havelock road.

The acquisition was made by the Chairman of the Municipal Council in pursuance of a direction issued to him by His Excellency the Governor. The Chairman fixed the amount of compensation at Rs. 50, while the respondents claimed a sum of Rs. 1,737.50. The matter was then referred to the District Judge, who after inquiry awarded the respondents a sum of Rs. 1,433.43 and condemned the Chairman to pay the respondent's costs.

The Chairman of the Municipal Council appealed.

A. E. Keuneman, K. C. (with him F. C. W. van Geyzel), for the plaintiff, appellant.-The acquisition took place at the instance of the Crown and the only question to be determined is the market value of the land at the time of awarding compensation under section 21 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1876. The entire portion of land acquired falls within street lines that have been duly laid and the land must therefore be valued with reference to the existence of such street lines and the consequent prohibition of building within them. Where property is subject to limited user its valuation must necessarily take that factor into account. (Cowie v. Mc-dermott [1 (1914) A. C. 1056]; Uyagar Lall v. Secretary of State [2 I. L. R. 33 All. 733.] ; Newnham v. Gomis [3 35 N. L. R. 119.].) If the defendant has rights to compensation under other Ordinances like 6 of 1910 and 19 of 1915, by reason of the laying down of street lines those rights should be canvassed in other proceedings and cannot affect the market value under section 21 of 3 of 1876.

There is no evidence of the value of the land acquired other than that given by the appellant's assessor and this must, therefore, it is submitted, be accepted as the market value of the land.

N. E. Weerasooria (with him J. A. T. Perera) for defendant, respondent.-The laying down of street lines is a step in acquisition and any depreciation in value caused thereby should not be taken into

consideration in assessing the compensation payable. It was decided in the case of In re Lucas and The Chesterfield Gas and Water Board [1 (1909) 1 K. B. 16.] that no increase in the value of the land resulting from the authorization of the scheme which led to the acquisition should be taken into consideration in assessing the compensation. Section 21 of the Land Acquisition Ordinance provides that compensation should be assessed as at the date of the acquisition. Street lines were laid in 1925, but it is possible to assess the market value in 1935, without taking into consideration any depreciation in value caused by the laying down of street lines in 1925. The laying down of street lines does not render the land sterile. There is no provision of law which prohibits building on land which falls within street lines. Even if the laying down of street lines does render the land sterile and the depreciation in value thereby caused should

Click Here to Read the rest of this document