BASNATAKE, C.J.—Wicieramasinghe v. The Government Agent, Hambantota 25
1962Present: Basnayake, C.J., and Abeyesundere, J.S. WICKRAMASINGHE, Appellant, and THE GOVERNMENTAGENT, HAMBANTOTA, Respondent
8. C. 4—Land Acquisition Case, BR. 1635
Land acquisition—Appeal to Board of Review—Duty of Board to make order as tooosts—Interest on compensation—Land Acquisition Act, ss. 19, 26 (1), 28,35, 38.
In land acquisition proceedings a party is entitled to be awarded the costaand interest due to bim in terms of sections 26 (1) and 35 of the Land AcquisitionAct.
A- PPEAL under section 28 of the Band Acquisition Act.
S.G. E. Rodrigo, for Appellant.
8. Pasupathy, Crown Counsel, for Respondent.
June 7, 1962. Basnayake, C.J.—
This is an appeal under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from thedecision of the Board of Review constituted under section 19 of that Act.
It would appear from the affidavit filed by the appellant along with hispetition of appeal that he was the owner of two lands called GederawattaMudubkebella and Hedagedarawatta part of assessment Nos. 107/6 and107/7 in Ward No. 6 of Beliatta Town depicted as Lots Nos. 231and 239 in Sup. No. 16 to F. V. P. 291 in extent 3 acres and 6 perches.The acquiring officer took possession of the land by virtue of an order ,made by the Minister under section 38 and published in GazetteNo. 10,348 of 1st February 1952.
The Board has determined the value of the land at Rs. 4,000 per acreand entered an award of Rs. 12,150. The main questions urged bylearned counsel are—
(а)that no regard has been paid to the value of the buildings on the
land in arriving at the valuation;
(б)no costs have been awarded to the appellant by the Board although
the Board increased the value awarded by the acquiring officer;(c) that no interest which he is in law entitled to has been allowedby the Board.
Counsel did not press the first ground as the buildings were schoolbuildings built with contributions from the public and as the appellanthad at the inquiry before the acquiring officer stated, “ I now withdrawthe claim made by me for the school buildings standing in Lot 239 forwhich I have asked a sum of Rs. 15,000. ”
2B 1706ft—1,855 (4/04^
Colombo Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Shanmugalingam
The appellant cannot therefore claim any relief on ground (a) as he byhis own act had excluded the buildings from the ambit of the assessmentof compensation. In regard to the second ground the appellant isentitled to relief. The Board increased the valuation from Rs. 3,500 toRs. 4,000 per acre, but it proceeded to state “there will be no order as tocostsThis order is contrary to section 26 (1) of the Act which reads—
“The decision of the Board on an appeal made to it shall, unlessfor Bpecial reason the Board directs otherwise, contain an order asto the person who is to pay the costs of the proceedings relating to theappeal and shall determine the amount of such costs. ”
In the instant case as the Board gives no special reason for its orderdisallowing costs, the order is not in accordance with the statute and weset it aside and direct the Board to determine the amount of costs theappellant should receive from the Crown. Learned counsel urged thatunless we made an order regarding interest it may be contended that itwas not payable although the statute provided for it. Section 35 of theLand Acquisition Act requires that where the amount of compensationpayable under the Act is not paid to the person entitled to it or intoCourt before the date on which an Order under section 38 is published inthe Gazette, the amount of such compensation shall be paid with interestat the prescribed rate from that date up to the date of payment. Thereis no question that the appellant is entitled to interest on the amountultimately awarded to him by the Board at the prescribed rate.
The appellant in entitled to the costs of appeal.
Abeyesundeke, J.—I agree.
Order set aside.
L. S. WICKRAMASINGHE, Appellant, and THE GOVERNMENT AGENT, HAMBANTOTA, Responde