Present : Fisher C.J. and Drieberg J.
THE GOVERNMENT AGENT, SOUTHERN PROVINCE*v.
4—D. C. (Inty.) Galle, 26,848.
/,an<i acquisition—Compensation—Building site within street line—Clearproof.
Where in land acquisition proceedings, it was sought to excludecompensation for a building site on the ground that it fell withinan established street line,—
Held, that there must be clear proof of the street line and ofthe fact that it was established before the acquisition.
^ PPEAL from an order of the District Judge of Galle.
Rodrigo, G.G., for plaintiff, appellant.
B. F. de Silva, for defendants, respondents.
March 25, 1930. Drieberg J.—
This is an appeal awarding , the respondents Rs. 3,840 as com-pensation for two lots of land, Nos. 154 and 155 in preliminaryplan* P 1. The appellant tendered a sum of Rs. 802.81—Rs. 251.56for No. 154 and Rs. 551.25 for No. 155. The respondents claimedRs. 6,000 and 10 per cent, in addition on that sum. It was agreedby the parties that the evidence recorded in S. C. (Inty.) No. 30,D. C. No. 26,847, and S. C. (Inty.) No. 16, D. C. No. 26,827, shouldbe used for the purposes of this case.
The appeal in this case was take:'* up together with the appeals inS. C. No. 16 and S. C. No.. 30.
The consideration of this case has proceeded upon the assumptionthat as lot 154 falls within a defined street line as provided bi-section 18 of Ordinance No. 19 of 1915, the value of these two lotsdepended mainly on whether a building could be erected on lot 155.
The learned District Judge held that though a building could notbe erected on lot 155 alone it had a value as a building site, for theowners of No. 163 and No. 167 on the one side and of No. 146 andNo. 147 on the other would be prepared to buy it.
Now No. 167 has not been acquired, but No. 163 has; and it liesbetween No. 155 and No. 167.
On the northern side No. 147 has been acquired, but not No. 146;the plan (P 1) does not, however, show the line of division betweenNo. 146 and No. 147.
It is not said that a boutique cannot be built on No. 154 andNo. 155. There is evidence that a boutique seven- feet by eight feeton these two lots would give a rental of Rs. 30 a month, and on theagreed basis of valuation, at sixteen years* purchase, this wouldsupport the assessment of the learned District Judge.
The Govern-ment Agent,SouthernPro-vinee v.KadijaUmma
It is sought to exclude this basis of assessment on the ground thatlot 154 being within the street line, permission to build on it will notbe granted.
Though it is stated that lot 154 lies within a street line, there is uoevidence of the line having been proclaimed or when it was pro-claimed. The Superintendent of Works of the Municipal Councilsays he does not know when the street line was approved. There isin P 1 a red line on the plan, which is said to be the street line.
If it was intended to limit the compensation claimed by therespondents on this ground, there should have been clear evidencethat there is an established street line and that it was so declaredbefore the acquisition by the Government.
It has not been shown that the assessment by the learned DistrictJudge is not right, and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Fisher C.J.—I agree.