H. N. O. FERNANDO, C.J.—The Public Trustee v. Rajaratnam
Bale of the f acre into account in assessing the value of the portion of3$ acres which abuts the V. C. road. Accordingly in our opinion theBoard excluded relevant evidence from consideration, and acted somewhatarbitrarily, when it assessed the value of this portion at the rate ofBa. 3,000 per acre.
There was some evidence that as agricultural land the } acre wassuperior to the appellant’s portion of land, but there was nothing inthe evidence to show that there is any substantial difference between thetwo lands when valued as building sites. We hold therefore that, uponthe available evidence, the portion of land which abuts the. V. C. roadshould properly have been valued at the rate of Rs. 6,400 per acre.
In regard to the portion of about one acre which abuts the P. W. D.road, the Board valued this portion at Rs. 1,000 more per acre than theportion abutting the V. C. road. Since no reasons were Btated for thisdistinction, we do not feel able to maintain the same distinction inconsidering the valuation which Bhould attach to the portion abuttingthe P. W. D. road. At the same time we see no reason why both theseportions should not be assessed at the same value. Accordingly we holdthat the portion of about one acre abutting the P. W. D. road shouldalso be valued at Bs. 6,400.
For these reasons the valuation set out in the order of the Board isamended as follows :—
Re. *.la. 0b. 6r. (fronting P. W. D. road)
3a. 2a. Of. (fronting V. C. rood)
1a. 3b. Op. (Cabook pita and footpaths)0a. 1b. 20p. (Deniya land)
35a. 2b. Up. (Balanoo land)
42a. Ob. 31p.
Ra. 0,400 par acre..0,4000
Rs. 0,400 per acreless20,1000
10% quantity allowance
Rs. 400 per aero..8500
Rs. 1,300 per acre..40,23937
73,640 37
Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to theappellant is fixed at Rii 73,649*37. We make no order as to costs.SauMRAWioraAifS, J.—I agree.Amount of compensation taercoacd.31 – Volume LXXV