( 1 ) CERTAIN lands were notified for acquisition for the purpose of kabini reservoir project. The present appeal pertains to the compensation awarded to the structures of the temples. In the preliminary notification, only lands were notified. It was stated before us that the said notification did not cover the structure of the temple and only the site on which the temples were built was included for the purpose of acquisition. The final notification was issued on 29th july, 1971. The claimant (the respondent before us) sought enhancement of compensation in l. a. c. 168 of 1974. The state contended that the temple was a muzrai temple and the claimant was not entitled to claim compensation. That was negatived. However, it was found that there was no award made in respect of the above structure. This decision of the reference court was affirmed in the appeal filed by the stale. No valuation was made by the land acquisition officer because the chief engineer concerned had not sent the valuation to him. In these circumstances, the claimant filed o. s. No. 18 of 1985 seeking a mandatory injunction to direct the valuation. The suit was decreed. Appeal by the state was dismissed and the second appeal was also dismissed. Thus the decree in the original suit became final. The land acquisition officer had before him several reports including the valuation report exhibit p-7. The reference court thought it fit to rely on this report and award compensation at Rs. 1,60,000/- exhibit p-7 is the report of the executive engineer (r. W. 1) estimating the structure at Rs. 66,370/- after deducting a depreciation of 60%. We are told that the said report was made in the year 1982. The executive engineer deducted depreciation for 60 years, i. e. , by deducting 60% of the value arrived at by him as the proper value of the structures when he made the report. It was contended before the reference court that the valuation should be for the year 1970 when the preliminary notification was issued, but the reference court did not accept the same because the preliminary notification in question did not include the structure of the temple. The claimant had to compel the state to pay compensation by approaching the court repeatedly. The reference court also did not accept the depreciation at 60%. The claimant had to compel the state to pay compensation by approaching the court repeatedly. The reference court also did not accept the depreciation at 60%. The reference court found that compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer was on the assumption that the area was only 1913. 77 sq. ft. But actually the extent was 2617 sq. Ft. On the basis of the valuation made by r. w. 1 in exhibit p-7, the reference court deducted depreciation of 25% to arrive at the figure Rs. 1,60,000/ -. The learned government pleader strenuously contended before us that the reference court was not justified in awarding the compensation which is based on the valuation of the year 1981-82. It was further contended that the depreciation should have been at least 60% while arriving at the figure. The question before us, is whether the principle adopted by the reference court is acceptable or not and whether we should interfere with the award of the reference court. At the outset, it should be noted that the claimant has to engage himself in a series of litigation before the matter was decided by the land acquisition officer. The preliminary notification by itself did not specifically refer to the structure at all and the authorities proceeded on the assumption that only the site was acquired and the super-structure need not be valued. Therefore the appropriate date to award the compensation will be the date when possession was taken, but no evidence was placed before us in this regard. From the evidence of pw-1, it is disclosed that the temple was a stone-construction with vajra plastering, a fact admitted even by r. w. 1. The gopura work comprised of carved pictures. Similar was the position of parvathi temple, temple of panchalingeshwara and of basava temple. The front gate and gopura also had pictures carved in them. A brick wall surrounded the temple with "vajra plastering", the kitchen also had a similar construction and plastering. All the temples were of a single complex measuring 2617 sq. Ft. Inside; all these temples were built in the year 1823, at one time and the three temples were touching one another. We find that the valuation made by r. w. 1 has not considered the sculptural aspect of the temples and that a temple has its own special value. A temple has no real market value. Ft. Inside; all these temples were built in the year 1823, at one time and the three temples were touching one another. We find that the valuation made by r. w. 1 has not considered the sculptural aspect of the temples and that a temple has its own special value. A temple has no real market value. But that does not mean, while awarding compensation, its special significance, including the sculptural and archaeological values should be ignored; they are quite relevant. Parks on valuations, (4th edn.) At page 6 quotes "cripps on compensation", wherein it is stated that principle of compensation is indemnity to the owner and the basis on which compensation for lands taken should be assessed on their value to the owner and not their value when taken to the promoters. The question is not what the persons who take the land will gain by taking it but what the person from whom it is taken will lose by having it taken from him; the application of this principle must depend upon the special circumstances in each case. We don't find any justification to apply a different principle to the case of a building having a special value. Parks, at page 90 points out that after ascertainment of the prime cost of a building (i. e. , cost of construction, without reference to any special value) present day value is to be determined, by deducting an appropriate percentage of depreciation. We find that, there is always a practical difficulty while applying the rate of depreciation. In the instant case, reference court thought it proper to deduct 25% towards depreciation from the prime-cost of the temple. However, no compensation was awarded with reference to the special value of the temple. We were not assisted by the learned counsel by citing any direct authority, governing the fact situation. However, the american law recognises the special value. In american jurisprudence, 27 (2d) page 75, para 281, it is stated:. However, no compensation was awarded with reference to the special value of the temple. We were not assisted by the learned counsel by citing any direct authority, governing the fact situation. However, the american law recognises the special value. In american jurisprudence, 27 (2d) page 75, para 281, it is stated:. " while market value is always the ultimate test, it occasionally happens that the property taken is of a class not commonly bought and sold, as a church or a college or a cemetery or the fee of a public street, or some other piece of property which may have an actual value to the owner, but which under ordinary conditions he would be unable to sell for an amount even approximating its real value. As market value presupposes a willing buyer, the usual test breaks down in such a case, and hence it is sometimes said that such property has no market value. In one sense this is true; but it is certain that for that reason it cannot be taken for nothing. From the necessity of the case, the value must be arrived at from the opinions of well-informed persons, based upon the purposes for which the property is suitable. This is not taking the "value in use" to the owner as contra-distinguished from the market value. What is done is merely to take into consideration the purposes for which the property is suitable as a means of ascertaining what reasonable purchasers would in all probability be willing to give for it, which in a general sense may be said to be the market value. "in other words, existence of a market could be imagined for the acquired property with its special value or features and an appropriate compensation has to be awarded; this 'market value' is arrived at by presupposing the existence of a willing buyer for the property with all its special significance. The principle of compensation being indemnity to the owner from whom the property is acquired, mere estimating the value based on the break-up method on the cost of construction, in the case of an old temple complex, would not reflect the real compensation. Bearing in mind these principles, we have to consider whether the facts of the case call for any interference by us with the award made by the reference court. The extent of the temple (floor area) being 2617 sq. Bearing in mind these principles, we have to consider whether the facts of the case call for any interference by us with the award made by the reference court. The extent of the temple (floor area) being 2617 sq. Ft. Cannot be doubted, having regard to the material on record; in fact, no attempt was made to demolish the said finding of the trial court. The appellant challenges the percentage of depreciation applied by the trial court. But the increase in the 'special value' of a temple, with the passage of time, with its other values, such as architectural and sculptural, were not considered by the reference court. These values, to a large extent, certainly, would off set, the deductible depreciation, sought to be applied by the appellant. Therefore, deduction of 25% towards depreciation, as against the 60% in the circumstances, would not affect the real value of the structures acquired. In the circumstances, we don't consider that we should interfere with the award of the reference court. Appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. --- *** --- .