Foster-Sutton, P. This is an appeal from a judgment of D. A. Sutherland, Esq., sitting as Reserve Settlement Commissioner under The Forests Ordinance (Chap. 122), by which he awarded the claimant-appellant the sum of £169 175. 6d. as compensation for the restriction of his rights in an area of land belonging to him in the Supong Forest Reserve.
On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Bossman submitted that the Reserve Settlement Commissioner proceeded on wrong. principles in making his assessment and failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that the appellant purchased the land in question for the purpose of cultivating it which, as a result of the judgment, he is no longer able to do.
The assessment is based on the evidence as to the market value of the land at the date of the notice to treat, that is to say the amount the land could have been expected to fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer, and from that sum the Commissioner deducted the estimated value of the rights in the land left to the appellant. I am unable to agree with the contention that the Commissioner proceeded upon wrong principles in making his award. It is relevant to observe that the land was purchased by the appellant only a few weeks before the publication of the notice of the proposal to constitute the Forest Reserve, and that the Commissioner accepted the sum paid by the appellant for the land at a public auction as the market value, although the appellant stated in his evidence that he thought the amount he paid “ was a high price for the land. In accepting that figure the Commissioner was, no doubt, influenced by the evidence of Mr. Albert Morgan Wright, a licensed auctioneer, who stated that he considered “the price given was a fair one”.
On the facts in this case, if the appellant had set out to prove the exact expenses incurred by him in connection with the property I have no doubt that the Commissioner would have increased his assessment by allowing the appellant a reasonable amount in respect of them, but as he greatly inflated his claim in this respect the Commissioner had no basis on which to act.
In concluding his judgment the Commissioner stated that he would ordinarily e been able to deliver judgment early in the year 1941, and that it was through fault of the appellant he had been prevented from doing so, he therefore ed him interest at the rate of 2i per cent per annum compound on the awarded, from the 1st February, 1941, to the date of judgment, 5th May, 2. Mr. Bossman submitted that in the circumstances the rate of interest awarded was too low, and I am of the same opinion. In my view 5 per cent compound interest would be a more equitable figure. I would accordingly amend judgment by substituting “5 per cent per annum compound “for the “ 2 cent per annum compound" awarded by the Commissioner.
It follows that, apart from the amendment indicated, I would dismiss this appeal but I would make no order as to costs.
Coussey, J.A. I concur. Windsor-Aubrey, J. I concur.
Appeal dismissed but rate of interest amended.