JUDGMENT Chamier, J. - This is an appeal against an award made by the District Judge of Shahjahanpur, under the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Judge has calculated the value of the laud on the basis of the rent hitherto received by the owner of the laud. In appeal it is urged that the land, lying as it does alongside a number of shops in a busy grain market, was of great value as a building site. It is said that 17 shops and a godown or grain store could be built on it, which would bring in not less than Rs. 1,200 per annum, and thus the market value of the land is not less than Rs. 20,000. Mr. Ryves, on behalf of the Secretary of State, admits the general principle that in cases of this kind the value of the land should be calculated with reference to the most lucrative and advantageous way in which the land might be used, but he points out that the Municipal Board of Shahjahanpur, has repeatedly refused to allow any buildings to be erected on the plot in question on the ground that it is required as a parao or stand for carts coming to the ganj, and that serious inconvenience would be caused to the public if buildings were erected thereon. The appellant contends that the orders of the Board should be disregarded for the purpose of calculating the value of the lands, and that the Board, for whom the land is being acquired, cannot be allowed to use their own orders for the purpose of depreciating the land. It is not suggested that the Board had any idea of taking up the laud under the Land Acquisition Act when they refused to allow buildings to be erected on the land, or that they were actuated by any improper motive. It must be taken that they acted in the interest of the inhabitants of the municipality. The appellant made no attempt to have the orders of the Board set aside. In these circumstances it seems to me that the fact that the appellant would never have been allowed to build on the land must be taken into consideration in ascertaining the market value, and that the land cannot be valued as a building site. The appellant made no attempt to have the orders of the Board set aside. In these circumstances it seems to me that the fact that the appellant would never have been allowed to build on the land must be taken into consideration in ascertaining the market value, and that the land cannot be valued as a building site. This view is supported to some extent by the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Stabbing v. Metropolitan Board of Works (1870) L.R., 6 Q.B., 87. In that case part of a disused grave yard was taken up for the purpose of a new road. The rector of the parish claimed that the land should be valued as if it was divested of its ecclesiastical character and could be used for any purpose. The court overruled this contention and held that as the land could not be used by the rector and was practically valueless in his hands, it could not be valued as land which was not subject to any restriction. In the present case it is quite clear that the Board would never have allowed the appellant to build on the land. At the time when it was acquired for the Board, it was of no value whatever as a building site, and in my opinion it would be wrong to value it as such. 2. It seems to have been contended in the court below that the land was worth Rs. 25 per square yard owing to its proximity ho, the ganj. There is no evidence to support this extravagant claim. 3. I would dismiss this appeal with costs. Karamat Husain, J. I agree. By the Court.--The appeal is dismissed with costs.