Aswani v Collector of Land Revenue

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 28 May 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGCA 9
• Date: 28 May 1982
• Subject Matter: Rent-controlled premises,Valuation,Compensation payable,Land,Recent sale in vicinity,Control of Rent Act (Cap 266),Compulsory acquisitions,Method of assessment,ss 3, 5, 15 & 33 Land Acquisition Act (Cap 272)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 35 of 1981
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: M Karthigesu (Karthigesu & Arul)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: LAJ Smith (LAJ Smith)

In July 1973, Mr Hazoor Singh Kalra entered into a contract to purchase No 92 High Street. The purchase price was $400,000. He was then the tenant of the ground floor of the premises, which are rent-controlled premises. The upper floors were occupied by other tenants. The sale was completed in November 1973. Soon after completion the new owner of No 92 High Street was minded to sell and granted an option to a land broker to purchase the property at the price of $750,000 with vacant possession of the ground floor.

The broker approached Mr Sugnomal Nathumal Aswani, the appellant in this appeal and told him that No 92 High Street was for sale with vacant possession of the ground floor for $750,000 and that he had an option to purchase from the owner. Mr Aswani was in the wholesale textile business and had carried on his business under the firm`s name of N Sugnomal at No 76A High Street since 1955. Mr Aswani was interested as for some years he had been looking for a shop in upper High Street which is the centre for big scale wholesale textile business in Singapore. He decided to purchase No 92 High Street. Accordingly, he exercised the option in November 1973.

For the purpose of obtaining a loan from a bank, No 92 High Street was valued by CH Williams & Co (Pte), a reputable firm of valuers and estate agents who valued the property as at January 1974 at $765,000 subject to vacant possession being obtained for the ground floor and the top floor. Before the completion of the sale of the property to the appellant, which took place, in March 1974, he was approached by a broker to sell his option for $50,000. He declined to accept the offer.

In August 1973 another property in upper High Street, No 86 High Street had also been sold by its owner to Mr BH Melwani, the tenant of the ground floor of that premises. The purchase price was $500,000.

Pursuant to the provisions of s 5 of the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 272) (the Act), by a declaration dated 9 November 1974 published in the Government Gazette notice was given of the intended acquisition of No 92 High Street for the purpose of urban redevelopment. After the giving of the notification and the procedure laid down in ss 6 and 8 of the Act having been followed, the Collector took the steps prescribed by the Act to determine the compensation that ought to be allowed to Mr Aswani for his property, No 92 High Street. It is provided by s 15 of the Act that in so doing the Collector shall be guided by the provisions of s 33 of the Act. For the present purpose the material provisions of s 33 are as follows:

(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of sub-s (2), (3) and (4) of this section, take into consideration the following matters and no others, namely -

(a) the market value as at the 30 November 1973, or the market value as at the date of the publication of the notification under sub-s (1) of s 3 of this Act if the notification is within six months from the date thereof followed by a declaration under s 5 of this Act in respect of the same land or part thereof, or the market value as at the date of the publication of the declaration made under s 5 of this Act, whichever is the lowest;

At the enquiry conducted by the Collector on 12 May 1977 Mr Aswani`s solicitor submitted a claim on his behalf of $883,793. On 15 July 1977 the Collector made an `award of a total sum of $123,600 or reflecting approximately $772.02 psm or $71 psf (subject to tenancies) as compensation.`

On appeal to the Appeals Board, the Commissioner of Appeals, sitting alone, after hearing evidence and submissions gave his decision as follows:

I will give my reasons in writing if necessary should this appeal go further. Very briefly, the issue is one of valuation. The subject matter is No 92 High Street, which is situated - there is no dispute on this, it is

...