Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City

Decided On : Jul-13-1956

Court : Karnataka

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Land Acquisition Act',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 23',
			(int) 2 => 'Sind 57'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Venkataramaiya',
			(int) 1 => 'Municipal Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar',
			(int) 3 => 'Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl',
			(int) 4 => 'Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy',
			(int) 5 => 'Lachman Prasad v. Secy',
			(int) 6 => 'Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy',
			(int) 7 => 'Rs',
			(int) 8 => 'Court 576th'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one',
			(int) 1 => 'One',
			(int) 2 => '2/-',
			(int) 3 => '142',
			(int) 4 => '51-52',
			(int) 5 => '77 to 83',
			(int) 6 => '10/-',
			(int) 7 => '20/-',
			(int) 8 => 'a quarter',
			(int) 9 => '18.He',
			(int) 10 => '10',
			(int) 11 => '10',
			(int) 12 => '43',
			(int) 13 => '652',
			(int) 14 => '402',
			(int) 15 => '25',
			(int) 16 => '393',
			(int) 17 => '356',
			(int) 18 => '2',
			(int) 19 => '29',
			(int) 20 => '514',
			(int) 21 => '20/-',
			(int) 22 => '5/-'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mysore',
			(int) 1 => 'Karachi Municipality v.',
			(int) 2 => 'Govt',
			(int) 3 => 'Bombay'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sayyaji Rao Road'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Lansdown Buildings',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'Engineer',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'Naraindas',
			(int) 5 => 'State',
			(int) 6 => 'State',
			(int) 7 => 'ILR',
			(int) 8 => 'Vallore',
			(int) 9 => 'State',
			(int) 10 => 'ILR',
			(int) 11 => 'Court'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'first'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10/- per square yard'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'annual',
			(int) 1 => '1928',
			(int) 2 => '1915',
			(int) 3 => '10/-',
			(int) 4 => 'annual',
			(int) 5 => '1980/-',
			(int) 6 => '1485/-.For 18 years',
			(int) 7 => '26,730/-',
			(int) 8 => '26,730/-'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Headquarters Deputy Collector'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '25 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '15/- per cent'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371165',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 23',
			'appealno' => 'Regular Appeal Nos. 141 and 142 of 1951',
			'appellant' => 'Rajasekhara and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 149; [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Compensation - Claimants were passengers in the goods carriage and not loaders  Appeal against fastening liability on the Insurance Company  Held, The motor vehicle in question, indisputably a goods carriage, meant for carrying goods and not passengers in which the 1st respondent /claimant travelled and sustained injuries. It is for the insured owner of the vehicle to make good the compensation and no liability could be fastened on the appellant / insurer.  -  In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate. Merwanji Muncherji Cama, 10 Bom LR 907 (B) and in re, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, 10 Bom Lr 701 (C), the valuation of a land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of the one to the other does not furnish a reliable estimate of the property. Secy, of State, ILR 29 Bom 514 (G). 4. The lower Court has found after inspection that the building was strong, in good condition and well kept at the time of inspection. It has also held that the better way of valuing the property in this case is called the 'rental method and hot' the land and building method-adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer'.In view of this and the fact that evidence about fair rent is considered to be 'very satisfactory' the claimant is entitled to urge that he should not be put to disadvantage by applying other methods of valuation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Asst. Adv. General',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1956-07-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both these appeals under the Land Acquisition Act in which parties are the same may be disposed of by one order The only point for consideration is the amount payable as compensation. The properties are buildings situated in Mysore near Sayyaji Rao Road at the extremity of Lansdown Buildings. One case relates to those numbered by the Municipality as 77 to 83 and the other to what bore the number 83/1. The claim regarding the latter for increasing the amount paid by the lower Court may be first dealt with. This is said to have been a residential building facing a lane behind a row of shops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The structure was old. Its doors and windows were in a decayed condition and at the time of acquisition was not in occupation of any one but used as a godown. The lover court has accepted the value of this at Rs. 925/- but increased the value of the ground from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 10/- per square yard. This appears to be fair and appellant's counsel has not pointed out anything to hold it otherwise. R.A. No. 142 of 51-52 is therefore dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The shops bearing Municipal Nos. 77 to 83 stand on a different footing. It is found that Rs. 150/- are realised as rent from the shops and rooms which are let out and for those retained Tor use of the owners only, Rs. 10/- were fixed as rent though Rs. 20/- were claimed. The learned Judge capitalised the rent by deducting from the annual realisation at this rate a quarter of it as being required for repairs and taxes and multiplying the balance by 18.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">He also valued the land and the building separately on the basis of estimates of cost by Engineer and struck the average between the total of these and the amount on the basis of rent. Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar on behalf of the court-guardian of the minor claimant contended that this is not a fair or appropriate assessment of the value.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 23 requires that the first thing to be taken into account in determining compensation is the market value of the property at the time of the notification. The expression 'Market value' is not defined in the Act and it has to be ascertained by the Court in each case with due regard to the conditions of the time and factors which affect transactions between a willing seller and intending buyer. In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A recognised basis of valuation of buildings in urban areas is the rent normally realised by those when these are leased to others and the rent expected to be got if these are in occupation of the owners. As has been said in some cases such as Karachi Municipality v. Naraindas, AIR 1933 Sind 57 (A) and Govt. ot Bombay v. Merwanji Muncherji Cama, 10 Bom LR 907 (B) and in re, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, 10 Bom Lr 701 (C), the valuation of a land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of the one to the other does not furnish a reliable estimate of the property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In a growing town where demand for shops or building to carry on business is increasing and there is certainty of income if leased out, the rental value is treated as important and an index to the market value of the property. See Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy. of State, Am 1928 Cal 622 (D); Lachman Prasad v. Secy. of State, ILR 43 All 652: (AIR 1921 All 402) (E) Rajammal v. Headquarters Deputy Collector, Vallore, 25 Ind Cas 393 : (AIR 1915 Mad 356 (2) (P); Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy, of State, ILR 29 Bom 514 (G).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The lower Court has found after inspection that the building was strong, in good condition and well kept at the time of inspection. It has also held that the better way of valuing the property in this case is called the 'rental method and hot' the land and building method-adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer'. In view of this and the fact that evidence about fair rent is considered to be 'very satisfactory' the claimant is entitled to urge that he should not be put to disadvantage by applying other methods of valuation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The rent realised is stated to be Rs. 150/- and the rent which the portion retained by the owner if let out would fetch is in the view of the learned Judge Rs. 10/-. The claimant asserted that Rs. 20/- could be had. We think that the estimate may be raised by Rs. 5/- so that the total rent [per month may be taken to be Rs. 165/-. The annual rent will be Rs. 1980/-. Deducting 25 per cent for taxes and repairs the balance is Rs. 1485/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For 18 years which may be deemed the appropriate period for the purposes of capitalising the amount will be Rs. 26,730/-. Appellants claim only 5/6th share in the amount of compensation. So in modification of the order of the lower Court 576th of Rs. 26,730/- will be paid as compensation to appellants in R. A. 141/51-52 with statutory allowance of Rs. 15/- per cent and interest at Rs. 6/- per cent per annum from the date the property is taken possession of in the appeal the parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. There was no justification for filing thecross-objections in both the appeals. They aretherefore dismissed with costs. Time for paymentthree months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Order accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1957Kant20; AIR1957Mys20; ILR1956KAR234',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371165'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Land Acquisition Act',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 23',
		(int) 2 => 'Sind 57'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Venkataramaiya',
		(int) 1 => 'Municipal Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar',
		(int) 3 => 'Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl',
		(int) 4 => 'Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy',
		(int) 5 => 'Lachman Prasad v. Secy',
		(int) 6 => 'Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy',
		(int) 7 => 'Rs',
		(int) 8 => 'Court 576th'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one',
		(int) 1 => 'One',
		(int) 2 => '2/-',
		(int) 3 => '142',
		(int) 4 => '51-52',
		(int) 5 => '77 to 83',
		(int) 6 => '10/-',
		(int) 7 => '20/-',
		(int) 8 => 'a quarter',
		(int) 9 => '18.He',
		(int) 10 => '10',
		(int) 11 => '10',
		(int) 12 => '43',
		(int) 13 => '652',
		(int) 14 => '402',
		(int) 15 => '25',
		(int) 16 => '393',
		(int) 17 => '356',
		(int) 18 => '2',
		(int) 19 => '29',
		(int) 20 => '514',
		(int) 21 => '20/-',
		(int) 22 => '5/-'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mysore',
		(int) 1 => 'Karachi Municipality v.',
		(int) 2 => 'Govt',
		(int) 3 => 'Bombay'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sayyaji Rao Road'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Lansdown Buildings',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'Engineer',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'Naraindas',
		(int) 5 => 'State',
		(int) 6 => 'State',
		(int) 7 => 'ILR',
		(int) 8 => 'Vallore',
		(int) 9 => 'State',
		(int) 10 => 'ILR',
		(int) 11 => 'Court'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'first'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10/- per square yard'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'annual',
		(int) 1 => '1928',
		(int) 2 => '1915',
		(int) 3 => '10/-',
		(int) 4 => 'annual',
		(int) 5 => '1980/-',
		(int) 6 => '1485/-.For 18 years',
		(int) 7 => '26,730/-',
		(int) 8 => '26,730/-'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Headquarters Deputy Collector'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '25 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '15/- per cent'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371165',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 23',
		'appealno' => 'Regular Appeal Nos. 141 and 142 of 1951',
		'appellant' => 'Rajasekhara and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 149; [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Compensation - Claimants were passengers in the goods carriage and not loaders  Appeal against fastening liability on the Insurance Company  Held, The motor vehicle in question, indisputably a goods carriage, meant for carrying goods and not passengers in which the 1st respondent /claimant travelled and sustained injuries. It is for the insured owner of the vehicle to make good the compensation and no liability could be fastened on the appellant / insurer.  -  In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate. Merwanji Muncherji Cama, 10 Bom LR 907 (B) and in re, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, 10 Bom Lr 701 (C), the valuation of a land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of the one to the other does not furnish a reliable estimate of the property. Secy, of State, ILR 29 Bom 514 (G). 4. The lower Court has found after inspection that the building was strong, in good condition and well kept at the time of inspection. It has also held that the better way of valuing the property in this case is called the 'rental method and hot' the land and building method-adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer'.In view of this and the fact that evidence about fair rent is considered to be 'very satisfactory' the claimant is entitled to urge that he should not be put to disadvantage by applying other methods of valuation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Asst. Adv. General',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1956-07-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both these appeals under the Land Acquisition Act in which parties are the same may be disposed of by one order The only point for consideration is the amount payable as compensation. The properties are buildings situated in Mysore near Sayyaji Rao Road at the extremity of Lansdown Buildings. One case relates to those numbered by the Municipality as 77 to 83 and the other to what bore the number 83/1. The claim regarding the latter for increasing the amount paid by the lower Court may be first dealt with. This is said to have been a residential building facing a lane behind a row of shops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The structure was old. Its doors and windows were in a decayed condition and at the time of acquisition was not in occupation of any one but used as a godown. The lover court has accepted the value of this at Rs. 925/- but increased the value of the ground from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 10/- per square yard. This appears to be fair and appellant's counsel has not pointed out anything to hold it otherwise. R.A. No. 142 of 51-52 is therefore dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The shops bearing Municipal Nos. 77 to 83 stand on a different footing. It is found that Rs. 150/- are realised as rent from the shops and rooms which are let out and for those retained Tor use of the owners only, Rs. 10/- were fixed as rent though Rs. 20/- were claimed. The learned Judge capitalised the rent by deducting from the annual realisation at this rate a quarter of it as being required for repairs and taxes and multiplying the balance by 18.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">He also valued the land and the building separately on the basis of estimates of cost by Engineer and struck the average between the total of these and the amount on the basis of rent. Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar on behalf of the court-guardian of the minor claimant contended that this is not a fair or appropriate assessment of the value.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 23 requires that the first thing to be taken into account in determining compensation is the market value of the property at the time of the notification. The expression 'Market value' is not defined in the Act and it has to be ascertained by the Court in each case with due regard to the conditions of the time and factors which affect transactions between a willing seller and intending buyer. In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A recognised basis of valuation of buildings in urban areas is the rent normally realised by those when these are leased to others and the rent expected to be got if these are in occupation of the owners. As has been said in some cases such as Karachi Municipality v. Naraindas, AIR 1933 Sind 57 (A) and Govt. ot Bombay v. Merwanji Muncherji Cama, 10 Bom LR 907 (B) and in re, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, 10 Bom Lr 701 (C), the valuation of a land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of the one to the other does not furnish a reliable estimate of the property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In a growing town where demand for shops or building to carry on business is increasing and there is certainty of income if leased out, the rental value is treated as important and an index to the market value of the property. See Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy. of State, Am 1928 Cal 622 (D); Lachman Prasad v. Secy. of State, ILR 43 All 652: (AIR 1921 All 402) (E) Rajammal v. Headquarters Deputy Collector, Vallore, 25 Ind Cas 393 : (AIR 1915 Mad 356 (2) (P); Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy, of State, ILR 29 Bom 514 (G).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The lower Court has found after inspection that the building was strong, in good condition and well kept at the time of inspection. It has also held that the better way of valuing the property in this case is called the 'rental method and hot' the land and building method-adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer'. In view of this and the fact that evidence about fair rent is considered to be 'very satisfactory' the claimant is entitled to urge that he should not be put to disadvantage by applying other methods of valuation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The rent realised is stated to be Rs. 150/- and the rent which the portion retained by the owner if let out would fetch is in the view of the learned Judge Rs. 10/-. The claimant asserted that Rs. 20/- could be had. We think that the estimate may be raised by Rs. 5/- so that the total rent [per month may be taken to be Rs. 165/-. The annual rent will be Rs. 1980/-. Deducting 25 per cent for taxes and repairs the balance is Rs. 1485/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For 18 years which may be deemed the appropriate period for the purposes of capitalising the amount will be Rs. 26,730/-. Appellants claim only 5/6th share in the amount of compensation. So in modification of the order of the lower Court 576th of Rs. 26,730/- will be paid as compensation to appellants in R. A. 141/51-52 with statutory allowance of Rs. 15/- per cent and interest at Rs. 6/- per cent per annum from the date the property is taken possession of in the appeal the parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. There was no justification for filing thecross-objections in both the appeals. They aretherefore dismissed with costs. Time for paymentthree months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Order accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1957Kant20; AIR1957Mys20; ILR1956KAR234',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371165'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Land Acquisition Act',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 23',
			(int) 2 => 'Sind 57'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Venkataramaiya',
			(int) 1 => 'Municipal Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar',
			(int) 3 => 'Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl',
			(int) 4 => 'Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy',
			(int) 5 => 'Lachman Prasad v. Secy',
			(int) 6 => 'Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy',
			(int) 7 => 'Rs',
			(int) 8 => 'Court 576th'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'one',
			(int) 1 => 'One',
			(int) 2 => '2/-',
			(int) 3 => '142',
			(int) 4 => '51-52',
			(int) 5 => '77 to 83',
			(int) 6 => '10/-',
			(int) 7 => '20/-',
			(int) 8 => 'a quarter',
			(int) 9 => '18.He',
			(int) 10 => '10',
			(int) 11 => '10',
			(int) 12 => '43',
			(int) 13 => '652',
			(int) 14 => '402',
			(int) 15 => '25',
			(int) 16 => '393',
			(int) 17 => '356',
			(int) 18 => '2',
			(int) 19 => '29',
			(int) 20 => '514',
			(int) 21 => '20/-',
			(int) 22 => '5/-'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mysore',
			(int) 1 => 'Karachi Municipality v.',
			(int) 2 => 'Govt',
			(int) 3 => 'Bombay'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sayyaji Rao Road'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Lansdown Buildings',
			(int) 1 => 'Court',
			(int) 2 => 'Engineer',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'Naraindas',
			(int) 5 => 'State',
			(int) 6 => 'State',
			(int) 7 => 'ILR',
			(int) 8 => 'Vallore',
			(int) 9 => 'State',
			(int) 10 => 'ILR',
			(int) 11 => 'Court'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first',
			(int) 1 => 'first'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10/- per square yard'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'annual',
			(int) 1 => '1928',
			(int) 2 => '1915',
			(int) 3 => '10/-',
			(int) 4 => 'annual',
			(int) 5 => '1980/-',
			(int) 6 => '1485/-.For 18 years',
			(int) 7 => '26,730/-',
			(int) 8 => '26,730/-'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Headquarters Deputy Collector'
		),
		'MONEY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '25 per cent',
			(int) 1 => '15/- per cent'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '371165',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 23',
			'appealno' => 'Regular Appeal Nos. 141 and 142 of 1951',
			'appellant' => 'Rajasekhara and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City',
			'casenote' => ' - Section 149; [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Compensation - Claimants were passengers in the goods carriage and not loaders  Appeal against fastening liability on the Insurance Company  Held, The motor vehicle in question, indisputably a goods carriage, meant for carrying goods and not passengers in which the 1st respondent /claimant travelled and sustained injuries. It is for the insured owner of the vehicle to make good the compensation and no liability could be fastened on the appellant / insurer.  -  In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate. Merwanji Muncherji Cama, 10 Bom LR 907 (B) and in re, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, 10 Bom Lr 701 (C), the valuation of a land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of the one to the other does not furnish a reliable estimate of the property. Secy, of State, ILR 29 Bom 514 (G). 4. The lower Court has found after inspection that the building was strong, in good condition and well kept at the time of inspection. It has also held that the better way of valuing the property in this case is called the 'rental method and hot' the land and building method-adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer'.In view of this and the fact that evidence about fair rent is considered to be 'very satisfactory' the claimant is entitled to urge that he should not be put to disadvantage by applying other methods of valuation.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Addl. Asst. Adv. General',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1956-07-13',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both these appeals under the Land Acquisition Act in which parties are the same may be disposed of by one order The only point for consideration is the amount payable as compensation. The properties are buildings situated in Mysore near Sayyaji Rao Road at the extremity of Lansdown Buildings. One case relates to those numbered by the Municipality as 77 to 83 and the other to what bore the number 83/1. The claim regarding the latter for increasing the amount paid by the lower Court may be first dealt with. This is said to have been a residential building facing a lane behind a row of shops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The structure was old. Its doors and windows were in a decayed condition and at the time of acquisition was not in occupation of any one but used as a godown. The lover court has accepted the value of this at Rs. 925/- but increased the value of the ground from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 10/- per square yard. This appears to be fair and appellant's counsel has not pointed out anything to hold it otherwise. R.A. No. 142 of 51-52 is therefore dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The shops bearing Municipal Nos. 77 to 83 stand on a different footing. It is found that Rs. 150/- are realised as rent from the shops and rooms which are let out and for those retained Tor use of the owners only, Rs. 10/- were fixed as rent though Rs. 20/- were claimed. The learned Judge capitalised the rent by deducting from the annual realisation at this rate a quarter of it as being required for repairs and taxes and multiplying the balance by 18.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">He also valued the land and the building separately on the basis of estimates of cost by Engineer and struck the average between the total of these and the amount on the basis of rent. Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar on behalf of the court-guardian of the minor claimant contended that this is not a fair or appropriate assessment of the value.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 23 requires that the first thing to be taken into account in determining compensation is the market value of the property at the time of the notification. The expression 'Market value' is not defined in the Act and it has to be ascertained by the Court in each case with due regard to the conditions of the time and factors which affect transactions between a willing seller and intending buyer. In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A recognised basis of valuation of buildings in urban areas is the rent normally realised by those when these are leased to others and the rent expected to be got if these are in occupation of the owners. As has been said in some cases such as Karachi Municipality v. Naraindas, AIR 1933 Sind 57 (A) and Govt. ot Bombay v. Merwanji Muncherji Cama, 10 Bom LR 907 (B) and in re, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, 10 Bom Lr 701 (C), the valuation of a land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of the one to the other does not furnish a reliable estimate of the property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In a growing town where demand for shops or building to carry on business is increasing and there is certainty of income if leased out, the rental value is treated as important and an index to the market value of the property. See Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy. of State, Am 1928 Cal 622 (D); Lachman Prasad v. Secy. of State, ILR 43 All 652: (AIR 1921 All 402) (E) Rajammal v. Headquarters Deputy Collector, Vallore, 25 Ind Cas 393 : (AIR 1915 Mad 356 (2) (P); Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy, of State, ILR 29 Bom 514 (G).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The lower Court has found after inspection that the building was strong, in good condition and well kept at the time of inspection. It has also held that the better way of valuing the property in this case is called the 'rental method and hot' the land and building method-adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer'. In view of this and the fact that evidence about fair rent is considered to be 'very satisfactory' the claimant is entitled to urge that he should not be put to disadvantage by applying other methods of valuation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The rent realised is stated to be Rs. 150/- and the rent which the portion retained by the owner if let out would fetch is in the view of the learned Judge Rs. 10/-. The claimant asserted that Rs. 20/- could be had. We think that the estimate may be raised by Rs. 5/- so that the total rent [per month may be taken to be Rs. 165/-. The annual rent will be Rs. 1980/-. Deducting 25 per cent for taxes and repairs the balance is Rs. 1485/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For 18 years which may be deemed the appropriate period for the purposes of capitalising the amount will be Rs. 26,730/-. Appellants claim only 5/6th share in the amount of compensation. So in modification of the order of the lower Court 576th of Rs. 26,730/- will be paid as compensation to appellants in R. A. 141/51-52 with statutory allowance of Rs. 15/- per cent and interest at Rs. 6/- per cent per annum from the date the property is taken possession of in the appeal the parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. There was no justification for filing thecross-objections in both the appeals. They aretherefore dismissed with costs. Time for paymentthree months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Order accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1957Kant20; AIR1957Mys20; ILR1956KAR234',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City',
			'sub' => 'Property',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '371165'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Land Acquisition Act',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 23',
		(int) 2 => 'Sind 57'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Venkataramaiya',
		(int) 1 => 'Municipal Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar',
		(int) 3 => 'Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl',
		(int) 4 => 'Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy',
		(int) 5 => 'Lachman Prasad v. Secy',
		(int) 6 => 'Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy',
		(int) 7 => 'Rs',
		(int) 8 => 'Court 576th'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'one',
		(int) 1 => 'One',
		(int) 2 => '2/-',
		(int) 3 => '142',
		(int) 4 => '51-52',
		(int) 5 => '77 to 83',
		(int) 6 => '10/-',
		(int) 7 => '20/-',
		(int) 8 => 'a quarter',
		(int) 9 => '18.He',
		(int) 10 => '10',
		(int) 11 => '10',
		(int) 12 => '43',
		(int) 13 => '652',
		(int) 14 => '402',
		(int) 15 => '25',
		(int) 16 => '393',
		(int) 17 => '356',
		(int) 18 => '2',
		(int) 19 => '29',
		(int) 20 => '514',
		(int) 21 => '20/-',
		(int) 22 => '5/-'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mysore',
		(int) 1 => 'Karachi Municipality v.',
		(int) 2 => 'Govt',
		(int) 3 => 'Bombay'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sayyaji Rao Road'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Lansdown Buildings',
		(int) 1 => 'Court',
		(int) 2 => 'Engineer',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'Naraindas',
		(int) 5 => 'State',
		(int) 6 => 'State',
		(int) 7 => 'ILR',
		(int) 8 => 'Vallore',
		(int) 9 => 'State',
		(int) 10 => 'ILR',
		(int) 11 => 'Court'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first',
		(int) 1 => 'first'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10/- per square yard'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'annual',
		(int) 1 => '1928',
		(int) 2 => '1915',
		(int) 3 => '10/-',
		(int) 4 => 'annual',
		(int) 5 => '1980/-',
		(int) 6 => '1485/-.For 18 years',
		(int) 7 => '26,730/-',
		(int) 8 => '26,730/-'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Headquarters Deputy Collector'
	),
	'MONEY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '25 per cent',
		(int) 1 => '15/- per cent'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '371165',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51407/land-acquisition-act-1894-complete-act">Land Acquisition Act, 1894</a> - Sections 23',
		'appealno' => 'Regular Appeal Nos. 141 and 142 of 1951',
		'appellant' => 'Rajasekhara and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajasekhara and anr. Vs. Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City',
		'casenote' => ' - Section 149; [Ram Mohan Reddy, J] Compensation - Claimants were passengers in the goods carriage and not loaders  Appeal against fastening liability on the Insurance Company  Held, The motor vehicle in question, indisputably a goods carriage, meant for carrying goods and not passengers in which the 1st respondent /claimant travelled and sustained injuries. It is for the insured owner of the vehicle to make good the compensation and no liability could be fastened on the appellant / insurer.  -  In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate. Merwanji Muncherji Cama, 10 Bom LR 907 (B) and in re, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, 10 Bom Lr 701 (C), the valuation of a land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of the one to the other does not furnish a reliable estimate of the property. Secy, of State, ILR 29 Bom 514 (G). 4. The lower Court has found after inspection that the building was strong, in good condition and well kept at the time of inspection. It has also held that the better way of valuing the property in this case is called the 'rental method and hot' the land and building method-adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer'.In view of this and the fact that evidence about fair rent is considered to be 'very satisfactory' the claimant is entitled to urge that he should not be put to disadvantage by applying other methods of valuation.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K.R. Gopivallabha Iyengar, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Addl. Asst. Adv. General',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1956-07-13',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Venkataramaiya, C.J. and ;Padmanabhiah, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataramaiya, C.J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Both these appeals under the Land Acquisition Act in which parties are the same may be disposed of by one order The only point for consideration is the amount payable as compensation. The properties are buildings situated in Mysore near Sayyaji Rao Road at the extremity of Lansdown Buildings. One case relates to those numbered by the Municipality as 77 to 83 and the other to what bore the number 83/1. The claim regarding the latter for increasing the amount paid by the lower Court may be first dealt with. This is said to have been a residential building facing a lane behind a row of shops.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The structure was old. Its doors and windows were in a decayed condition and at the time of acquisition was not in occupation of any one but used as a godown. The lover court has accepted the value of this at Rs. 925/- but increased the value of the ground from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 10/- per square yard. This appears to be fair and appellant's counsel has not pointed out anything to hold it otherwise. R.A. No. 142 of 51-52 is therefore dismissed with costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The shops bearing Municipal Nos. 77 to 83 stand on a different footing. It is found that Rs. 150/- are realised as rent from the shops and rooms which are let out and for those retained Tor use of the owners only, Rs. 10/- were fixed as rent though Rs. 20/- were claimed. The learned Judge capitalised the rent by deducting from the annual realisation at this rate a quarter of it as being required for repairs and taxes and multiplying the balance by 18.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">He also valued the land and the building separately on the basis of estimates of cost by Engineer and struck the average between the total of these and the amount on the basis of rent. Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar on behalf of the court-guardian of the minor claimant contended that this is not a fair or appropriate assessment of the value.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 23 requires that the first thing to be taken into account in determining compensation is the market value of the property at the time of the notification. The expression 'Market value' is not defined in the Act and it has to be ascertained by the Court in each case with due regard to the conditions of the time and factors which affect transactions between a willing seller and intending buyer. In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as approximate and not a mathematically accurate estimate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A recognised basis of valuation of buildings in urban areas is the rent normally realised by those when these are leased to others and the rent expected to be got if these are in occupation of the owners. As has been said in some cases such as Karachi Municipality v. Naraindas, AIR 1933 Sind 57 (A) and Govt. ot Bombay v. Merwanji Muncherji Cama, 10 Bom LR 907 (B) and in re, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, 10 Bom Lr 701 (C), the valuation of a land with building thereon by valuing the land and the building separately and adding the value of the one to the other does not furnish a reliable estimate of the property.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In a growing town where demand for shops or building to carry on business is increasing and there is certainty of income if leased out, the rental value is treated as important and an index to the market value of the property. See Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy. of State, Am 1928 Cal 622 (D); Lachman Prasad v. Secy. of State, ILR 43 All 652: (AIR 1921 All 402) (E) Rajammal v. Headquarters Deputy Collector, Vallore, 25 Ind Cas 393 : (AIR 1915 Mad 356 (2) (P); Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy, of State, ILR 29 Bom 514 (G).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The lower Court has found after inspection that the building was strong, in good condition and well kept at the time of inspection. It has also held that the better way of valuing the property in this case is called the 'rental method and hot' the land and building method-adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer'. In view of this and the fact that evidence about fair rent is considered to be 'very satisfactory' the claimant is entitled to urge that he should not be put to disadvantage by applying other methods of valuation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The rent realised is stated to be Rs. 150/- and the rent which the portion retained by the owner if let out would fetch is in the view of the learned Judge Rs. 10/-. The claimant asserted that Rs. 20/- could be had. We think that the estimate may be raised by Rs. 5/- so that the total rent [per month may be taken to be Rs. 165/-. The annual rent will be Rs. 1980/-. Deducting 25 per cent for taxes and repairs the balance is Rs. 1485/-.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For 18 years which may be deemed the appropriate period for the purposes of capitalising the amount will be Rs. 26,730/-. Appellants claim only 5/6th share in the amount of compensation. So in modification of the order of the lower Court 576th of Rs. 26,730/- will be paid as compensation to appellants in R. A. 141/51-52 with statutory allowance of Rs. 15/- per cent and interest at Rs. 6/- per cent per annum from the date the property is taken possession of in the appeal the parties will bear their own costs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. There was no justification for filing thecross-objections in both the appeals. They aretherefore dismissed with costs. Time for paymentthree months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Order accordingly.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1957Kant20; AIR1957Mys20; ILR1956KAR234',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Chairman, City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore City',
		'sub' => 'Property',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '371165'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: the Land Acquisition Act, Section 23, Sind 57

PERSON: Venkataramaiya, Municipal Nos, Sri Gopivallabha Iyengar, Dhanjibhoy Eomanjl, Swarnamanjuri Dassi v. Secy, Lachman Prasad v. Secy, Raghunathdas Gopaldas v. Secy, Rs, Court 576th

CARDINAL: one, One, 2/-, 142, 51-52, 77 to 83, 10/-, 20/-, a quarter, 18.He, 10, 10, 43, 652, 402, 25, 393, 356, 2, 29, 514, 20/-, 5/-

GPE: Mysore, Karachi Municipality v., Govt, Bombay

FAC: Sayyaji Rao Road

ORG: Lansdown Buildings, Court, Engineer, Court, Naraindas, State, State, ILR, Vallore, State, ILR, Court

ORDINAL: first, first

QUANTITY: 10/- per square yard

DATE: annual, 1928, 1915, 10/-, annual, 1980/-, 1485/-.For 18 years, 26,730/-, 26,730/-

WORK_OF_ART: Headquarters Deputy Collector

MONEY: 25 per cent, 15/- per cent