Judgment :- 1. This appeal is filed by the State against the decision of the Sub-Court, Kottarakara enhancing by a sum of Rs.- 98,011.07 the compensation payable for the land acquired. The respondent has filed a cross-objection claiming a further "sum of Rs. 2,87,088/-. For the purpose of blasting and collecting rubbles for the Parappur Dam of Kallada Irrigation Project an extent of 8. 83 hectares of dry land in Sy. No. 1/8 of Edamon Village was acquired under the emergency provision of the Land Acquisition Act. The land is situate by the side of Trivandrum-Sbencottah Road a little away from Tenmala Junction where the road from Quilon joins. The respondent submitted a statement claiming land value at Rs. 80/-per cent, value of improvements of Rs. 28.536.66, value of granite Rs. 3,57,871/- and a sum .of Rs. 30,000/- towards injurious affection of the rest of the land belonging to the respondent. On the whole Rs. 5,90,950/- was claimed as compensation The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting an award enquiry assessed the land value at Rs 27.50 per Are. That worked out at Rs. 24 282 50 as land value. Rs. 15,301/- was assessed as value of improvements. Adding solatium at 15% and interest from the date of dispossession i e. 30-1-1971 to the date of the award a sum of Rs.47,616.23 was awarded as compensation. Dissatisfied with this award the claimant applied for reference and the Sub-Court, Kottarakkara enquired into the reference. 2. The main objection taken before the lower court to the award was that the land value awarded is too low compared to the market value of the land, that the value awarded for the timber is too low and that the granite rock available in the land has got a saleable value which should have been valued separately and paid for. The lower court issued a Commission to find out the cubic content of the rock in the acquired land. An Advocate Commissioner, A.W 4 visited the property and after necessary measurements estimated the cubic content of the rock as 7,12,500 Cubic Metres. The lower court was of the view that the value of the granite rock should be paid for and granite rock area should not be valued on a centage basis like any other land. An Advocate Commissioner, A.W 4 visited the property and after necessary measurements estimated the cubic content of the rock as 7,12,500 Cubic Metres. The lower court was of the view that the value of the granite rock should be paid for and granite rock area should not be valued on a centage basis like any other land. So holding, the value was fixed taking into account the amount claimed by the respondent for the quantity that could, as per the respondent's statement, be extracted That is to say, the respondent's witness had stated in his deposition that 25,00,000 cubic metres of rubble could be extracted from the acquired land and for that they had claimed a value of Rs. 3,57,871/-. The quantity estimated by the Commissioner is only 7,12,500 cubic metres This comes to only 57 of the estimate made by the claimant's "200" witness. So the lower court fixed the value of granite rock at 3,57,871 x 57 which works out --------------- 200 at Rs. 102.493/-. This works out at less than Re. 1/- per 100 C Ft. rubble. That was considered to be reasonable by the lower court and the same was awarded The area covered by the granite rock was 15.77 acres. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded value for this on a centage basis at Rs. 27.50 per Are (11.235 percent). As the value for the granite rock was found payable on a quantitative basis, the lower court found that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for 15.77 acres amounting to Rs. 17,717.59 should be deducted. On deducting this the compensation for granite rock was fixed as Rs ,1,02,493/- Rs. 17,719.59 = Rs. 84,775.41. To this was added Rs.13,235.66 as enhanced compensation for the trees for the following reason. After acquisition the trees in the acquired land were sold in auction by the Kerala Irrigation Division Project Office on 13-2-1972. A sum of Rs. 30,500/-was realised. This was found to be a reasonable and fair price for the value of the trees in the acquired land. The claim of the respondent was only Rs. 28,536.66 for trees which is less than the amount realised at the auction. So the lower court found that the full amount claimed by the respondent should be paid for trees. The Land Acquisition Officer has paid only Rs. 15.301. So the balance of Rs. The claim of the respondent was only Rs. 28,536.66 for trees which is less than the amount realised at the auction. So the lower court found that the full amount claimed by the respondent should be paid for trees. The Land Acquisition Officer has paid only Rs. 15.301. So the balance of Rs. 13,235.66 mentioned above was also found payable as additional value of trees. In the result a total of Rs. 98,011.07 was awarded as additional compensation by the lower court. It is this that is challenged in the appeal. In the cross-appeal the respondent has claimed an enhanced value for the land at Rs. 52.50 per cent for the non-rocky area of 6 acres 4 cents and for the rocky area at Rs. Rs 2 - per 100 C Ft. for 7,12,500 cubic metres. The enhanced compensation claimed by the respondent is Rs. 2,87,088. The question for consideration is whether any additional amount should be paid for the land where there is no rock, and what, if any, is the value to be awarded for the granite portion of the area acquired. 3. As regards the first claim we are not satisfied that the respondent has made out a case for enhancement of the land value The only document filed by the respondent is Ext. A-1 sale deed relating to a sale of 10 cents of land with timber trees standing thereon for Rs. 1,000/, None of the parties to the document is examined A W. 3 examined on behalf of the claimant has no idea about the property. rw. 1 examined on behalf of the State stated that Ext A-1 property lies six miles away from the acquired land and it forms a portion of at residential building site Such a transaction in respect of such a property cannot form the basis of valuing a hillock like the acquired land. The State has produced Exts. R-1 to R-4 relating to a transaction in respect of a land similarly situated as the acquired land and as per that the Land Acquisition Officer and the lower court have fixed the land value at Rs. 27.50 per Are. That is reasonable No further enhancement is called for for the non-rocky area of the land acquired There is no substance in the appellant's objection to the award of additional compensation for the trees in the acquired land. 27.50 per Are. That is reasonable No further enhancement is called for for the non-rocky area of the land acquired There is no substance in the appellant's objection to the award of additional compensation for the trees in the acquired land. The appellant within a short time after the acquisition sold the timber from the property and realised Rs. 30,000/-in public auction. The respondent had claimed only Rs. 28,000/- and odd and the lower court was therefore right in awarding that amount to the respondent. No interference is called for on this decision of the lower court. 4. The learned Advocate General's argument based on Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act LXVII of 1957) which requires a licence to be taken for quarrying gravel, a minor mineral, and that based on Land Conservancy Act do not affect the principle of valuation or the question of payment of value to the quarry. The acquisition steps proceed on the basis that the land including the rocks absolutely belong to the respondent If the Advocate General's argument is correct, the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act was unnecessary. That is not the legal position. Licence or permission, if any, under those Acts to blast and collect rubble may be a factor to be reckoned in fixing or reducing the value payable, but they do not totally negative payment of any compensation for a quarry acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 5. Then the question is whether the rocky portion of the acquired land should be valued on a centage basis on a or quantitative basis or on a capitalisation basis. The owner of the land acquired is entitled by way of compensation to get the market value of the property This is the first of the six factors mentioned in S.25 of the Land Acquisition Act. S.25(1) first, provides the rule that the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of S.3 should be considered. That is to say, the value of the property in its actual condition at the time of acquisition with all its existing advantages and with all its possibilities excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purpose for which the property is compulsorily acquired should be considered. That is to say, the value of the property in its actual condition at the time of acquisition with all its existing advantages and with all its possibilities excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purpose for which the property is compulsorily acquired should be considered. When the purpose of the acquisition itself is to blast and collect rubbles from the acquired land for the purpose of the Dam, it is the potentiality of the land that is considered for acquisition. Where a piece of land is compulsorily acquired by Government for quarrying purpose, its special adaptability for that purpose is an element for consideration in fixing the amount of compensation It may be that the only demand for the quarry came from the Government, If the land acquired has what we may say an adventitious value, that is something beyond its mere agricultural or nominal value and that is marketable in this sense, that persons wishing for a purpose for which the land is peculiarly applicable, to purchase that land, then the court has to take that into consideration: it is a matter no doubt contingent, but still it is a matter which is not to be ignored or put out of consideration by the valuer - see Raghunath Row v. Secretary of State (AIR 1921 Madras 324). When a land is a quarry it is this feature which is called the adventitious or potential value. The above principle rules out the valuation of the rocky area acquired, on a centage basis. The rocky area cannot be put to any agricultural use or used as a building site. So the lower court was right in rejecting this basis of valuation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer. 6. Then the question is what is the other method of valuing a quarry, as we have in this case. One aspect which cannot be forgotten in the rule of capitalisation is that it would normally apply to conditions where the source of profit is taken for all practical purposes as being inexhaustible though of a wasting character and enduring for a number of years at which the capitalisation is sought to be made. It also assumes that the annual income is fairly perpetual and periodical as in the case of an ordinary piece of agricultural land. It also assumes that the annual income is fairly perpetual and periodical as in the case of an ordinary piece of agricultural land. This principle of capitalisation cannot be applied to quarries of all kinds where neither its perpetual supply or more or less equally periodical return can be assumed. No doubt in some cases quarry has been valued on the basis of ascertaining the annual rent-see The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Shanmugaraya Mudaliar (ILR. XVI Madras 3169), Sircar v. Muthunayagam Pillai (XXXIV Travancore Law Reports 165) to cite only a few. It will not be correct to say that that, is the only method to be adopted In these judgments no reference is made to a decision where market value of quarry was arrived at on a quantitative basis. Such a method of valuing a quarry is also a well recognised one. If there is no difficulty in working, blasting, collecting and transporting rubbles, a fair test of that value would be the price the rubble would fetch as and when collected, less the cost of working the quarry. The principle on which an owner is to be compensated in such cases is laid down in Living stone v The Rawyards Coal Co. (5 Appeal Cases 34) by Lord Hatherley in the following words: "Those principles are that the owner shall be repossessed as far as possible of that which was his property, and that in respect of, that which has been destroyed or removed or sold or disposed of and which cannot therefore be restored in specie, there shall be such compensation made to him as will in fairness between both parties give to the one party the whole of that which was his, or the whole value of that which was his, and will at the same time give to the other, in calculating that value just allowance for all those outlays which he would have been obliged to make if he had been entering into a contract for that being done which has by misfortune or misadvartence on both sides and though by no fault been not done." This case was followed in Eden v. North-Eastern Railway Company (1907 A.0 400) which was approved in London and North-Eastern Railway Co. v. B. A. Collieries Ltd., (1945) A.C. 143. v. B. A. Collieries Ltd., (1945) A.C. 143. This principle has been followed in a Madras case Raghunath Row v. Secretary of State (AIR 1921 Madras 324) In that case the compensation to be paid was stated to be the present value of all the gravel that may be expected to be realised in future. In President of the Endowed Committee of Mazaffar Ali Khan v. Secretary of State for India (44 I C 1) the majority held that the basis of compensation to be awarded in respect of a quarry is the amount of workable stone likely to be got therefrom taken at a rate to be determined from the evidence. So on principle and authority a quarry can be valued on a capitalisation basis or on a quantitative basis. Both these methods are discussed and approved in Sirkar v Ouseph (1946 Travancore Law Reports 637 F. B ). One of us, sitting single, had in A.S. 167 of 1969 (Ext. A-4) occasion to consider this question in respect of a quarry acquired for Vizhinjam Harbour, Trivandrum District. The same method can be adopted here also as nobody has got a case that the claimant was getting any annual income by working the quarry to consider the capitalisation method of valuation. 7. The respondent had in the claim statement stated that on a modest estimate 15,000,000 C. ft. of granite will be available. When the Superintendent of the claimant was examined as A. W. 3 he said that 25 lakhs cubic metres of rubble could have been extracted Both these figures are pure guess work because the claimant had not tried to find out the cubic contents of the rock before filing the claim statement or giving evidence. The Commissioner deputed to find out the quantity has filed a report that above the surface of land, the quantity available can be estimated to be 7,12,500 Cubic Metres. How much there will be below the surface and whether that can be extracted is not attempted to be ascertained. That we may not consider here. In the absence of other materials the lower court found the quantity at 7,12,500 Cubic Metres This is not questioned in this appeal. So we accept that figure as the probable quantity that can be extracted. 8. That we may not consider here. In the absence of other materials the lower court found the quantity at 7,12,500 Cubic Metres This is not questioned in this appeal. So we accept that figure as the probable quantity that can be extracted. 8. The most difficult aspect is to find out the present value of this quantity to extract which possibly it may take years. The cost of working the quarry, the outlay and labour necessary for it, the equipment to blast and crush rubble, seigniorage payable, transporting it to a place where it can be sold, would all involve cost and these are hazardous estimates not easy of proper ascertainment. No doubt blasted rubble at quarry site, rubble blasted from boulders or obtained without blasting are all estimated to cost Rs 5/-per Cubic Metre in Quilon District as per P W D. schedule of rates for 1969 (Ext. A-2). This cannot form the basis of valuation They are for a finished product. The respondent claimed only Rs. 3,57,871 for 15 000,000 C.ft This will work out to 02832 x 15000000 = 424800 Cubic Metres and the rate will be 3.57,871 424800 roughly 84 Paise per cubic metre. In this court the respondent claims Rs 2/- per 100 C.ft, i e. about 70 Paise per cubic metre. The land is situate by the side of Trivandrum-Shencottah Road near Thenmala. Considering the above hazardous items of expenditure and the number of years it may take to extract the rock, we think 25 Paise per Cubic Metre will be a fair value to be paid. At this rate for 7,12,500 Cubic Metre the amount will come to Rs. 1,78,125/-. The lower court awarded only Rs. 1,02,493/- for the rocky portion of the land acquired which we consider is inadequate. In the result the appeal by the State is dismissed with costs. The cross-objection filed by the respondent is allowed in part. For the rocky portion of the land acquired, we enhance the compensation by Rs. 75,632/-. To this will be added 15% solatium. The respondent is allowed to recover the aggregate sum with 4% interest from 30-1-1971 to the date of realisation. There will be no order as to costs in the cross-objection. Dismissed. The counsel for the State asks for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. 75,632/-. To this will be added 15% solatium. The respondent is allowed to recover the aggregate sum with 4% interest from 30-1-1971 to the date of realisation. There will be no order as to costs in the cross-objection. Dismissed. The counsel for the State asks for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are not satisfied that any substantial question of law of general importance which in our opinion requires a decision by the Supreme Court arises in this case. Leave is refused. Leave Refused.