AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
There is uncontradicted evidence that the remaining lands of the claimants were injuriously affected by the construction of the channel and flood
bank. They are entitled to be compensated for this injury, even if the loss was more than counterbalanced by the advantages they gained from the
execution of the project. Eaglet v. Charing Cross Railway Co. (1867) 2 C.P. 638 : 36 L.J.C.P. 297 : 15 W.R. 10. What we have to consider is,
what would be the injury to the claimants if they were cultivating the lands themselves, as they might if so minded. It is not very easy to assess the
damages for diminished facilities of communication and access. The figures and evidence of the claimants are altogether, extravagant; but we think
that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Rs. 500 may fairly be allowed. As regards the garden land dealt; with in paragraph 12 of the
award, the District Judge himself says, the lands are probably as valuable as wet lands. We increase the award from Rs. 750 to Rs. 1,000"" per
acre. As regards the punja lands in paragraph 13, we think the award should'' be increased from Rs. 350 to Rs. 500 in view of the considerations
mentioned by the Judge. As regards paragraph 14, we increase the award from Rs. 190 to Rs. 220, as one of the tamarind trees in 1185A was
overlooked.
There will be no order as to costs.