Supreme Court awards compensation based on all evidence, not bound by expert valuations or specific statutory dates.

[*867] 1972 Nονember 30

(PIKIS, AG, P.D.C., ARTSMIDES, AG. D.J. )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LARNACA

Georghios Markou Zacharoulla and Others,

Claimants,

and

The Republic of Cyprus, through the Minister of Commerce & Industry,

Acquiring-Authority.

(References 1/71-13/71).

Compuls ry Acquisition - Compensation - Principles of Compensation - Section 10(a) of the Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law, 1962 (Law 15 of 1962) - Equivalence - Enhancement in the value of the land compulsorily acquired - Valuation reports - Court not bound to adopt the valuation of either of the two experts its duty being to award in the light of all the material before it a sum that duly compensates the owner for his loss - Direct comparison method - Purpose of acquisition establishment of industrial estate - Whether sales subsequent to the publication of - the notification of acquisition should be disregarded - And whether prices paid by Acquiring Authority to adjacent owners of land compulsorily acquired constitute sales that afford material for comparison in the context of the said section 10(a) - Shape of land and access to a road They are factors that have a bearing on the value of land - Subject properties agricultural land, off the main road, with remote prospects for development into building sites - Assessment of Compensation payable.

Suggestions for the reform of the Law.

P. Demetriou, for the Claimants.

G. Nicolaides, for the Acquiring Authority.

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Court was delivered by:-

PIKIS. AG. P.D.C.: On 3rd August,1968 [*868] a notification was published in the Official Gazette - No. 670 - under the provisions of Law 15/62 giving notice to the owners of several plots of land situate, on the outskirts of Aradhippou, off the main Larnaca-Nicosia road, near Larnaca, that their properties would he compulsorily acquired for the establishment of an industrial estate at Larnaca, The acquisition was sanctioned on 27th September, 1968.

Failing agreement as to the amount of compensation payable these proceedings were instituted on 19th May, 1971. In accordance with an order of the District Court of Larnaca dated 17th April, 1972 References 1/71-13/71 were consolidated, All claimants were represented by the same advocate and the Acquiring Authority had briefed the same counsel in all references

The references Were heard on 24th November, 1972. The claimants mostly base their claim for compensation on the evidence of Mr. Frixos Kimonis, a private valuer with 33 years prior experience as a clerk, at the lands department. Mr. Kimonis made separate valuation reports in relation to each reference, but all reports are virtually based on the same data and in essence his premises are the same in all cases. In addition to this evidence, the claimants called one other witness to fact, the Chairman of Aradhippou Village Committee and a member of the Improvement Board of the village, whose evidence related primarily to [*869] existing or contemplated plans for the supply of water to the area compulsorily acquired, and other lands in the vicinity. Mr. Lazar os Anastassiou, the assistant lands officer of the Larnaca District Lands Office had valued the subject properties on behalf of the Acquiring Authority, and filed valuation reports which, like Mr. Kimonis, he adopted on oath. Mr. Asastassiou is an experienced valuer with long service in the valuation department of the Lands Office, whereto he has been attached since 1953. In addition to expounding on his report in chief and in cross-examination r. Anastassiou disclosed to the Court details of offers made to claimants for the settlement of their claims, in fairness one might say, to the stand of claimants at the trial that payments made by the government to adjacent owners in settlement of their claims for compensation are relevant to the determination of compensation in the present cases.

A new map of the area was produced, exhibit 1, giving a global picture of the area acquired, with comprehensive information regarding details of agreements already reached with a number of co-owners and offers made to the claimants in the references before us. We found this map of great assistance and helped us gain a thorough perspective of the area and the issues under consideration.

Description of the Lands Acquired:

The area ear-marked for the establishment of the industrial estate is coloured green on the plan accompanying [* 870] the report of Mr. Anastassiou and is delineated in red on exhibit 1. The area is to the right of the main Famagusta Larnaca road as one proceeds in the direction of Larnaca and extends to an approximate width of 1,200 ft. inwards and away from the main road. There is no doubt that the lands compulsorily acquired were at the time of notification agricultural land. Conflicting opinions were advanced as to potential of the area. It is the case for the claimants as it emerges from the evidence of Mr. Kimonis and that of the mukhtar of Aradhippou village that the land had a distinct potential for development, with future prospects for division into building sites. Mr. Pantelouris testified that in the year 1966 the Improvement Board of Aradhippou had taken a decision to extend the water supply to an area on either side of the road leading from Aradhippou to the main Larnaea- Nicosia road in an effort to make feasible the development of the area for residential purposes. He marked on the plan, accompanying the report of the expert of the Acquiring Authority, the area affected by the decision of 1966. In 1967 a plan was submitted to the appropriate authorities for approval meant to make provision for the extension of v/ater supply to a wide area on either side of the Larnaca-Nicosia road including the area compulsorily acquired. The plan was abandoned the same year because:

(a) Lack of financial resources and

(b) lack of sufficient water supply. The whole plan was reactivated in [* 871] 1972 considering that its execution became feasible on account of a new borehole, sunk in 1972, increasing the water supply of the Tillage, This plan has not yet received official approval, but there is an expectation that provision will be made in the 1973 budget enabling the plan to get off the ground. There was no electricity supply in the area which is still the case and apart from the industrial estate which has been supplied with electricity in furtherance to an extension of the Larnaca electricity scheme supply, the area lacks electricity supply.

We have carefully studied the evidence before us and having fully considered the use of the land at the matetial time, the possibilities for a change of user in the light of the plans and prospects then in existence, further enlightened as to their likely success by events that havefollowed since, we find that at the time when, the notification to acquisition the lands was published, the subject properties were agricultural land with remote prospect for development into an area suitable for the creation of building sites. This assessment is borne out by subsequent events considering that despite the lapse of more than four years since the relevant date there has been no material change in the use of the land in the area. In accordance with the principles enunciated in the case of Bwllfa this is not an irrelevant consideration. It was said in that decision that facts where available must be preferred to prophecies. In fact, as [*872] Megarry J. said in Simpson v. Jones (1968) 2 All E.B. p.929, the principle adopted in the Bwllfa case is of a wider application and is. of guidance in other fields of the law as well. (See Bwllfa & Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd. v. Pontyoridd Waterworks Co. (1903) A.C. 426). The development potential of the land is one of the factors that qualifies its price and is reflected in the values fetched from the sale of land in the area. Where the valuation rests, as in this case, on the method of comparison with the sale of lands in the area bearing a comparison to the subject properties the overall potential of the land is mirrored in sales of comparable properties, and is not an additional independent factor enhancing the value of the land. Therefore, much that has been, said in this case in relation to possible plans fæ the development of the area is of no real assistance once both experts base their valuation on the sale of allegedly comparable properties.

The two experts rely on different sales as indicators of the value of the lands acquired. Mr. Anastassiou bases his valuation exclusively on sales of backland, situate off the Larnaca-Nicosia road, whereas Mr. Kimonis relies on sales of land on the main road. However, Mr. Kimonis admitted in evidence that properties, subject matter of the comparables of Mr. Anastassiou, bear similarity to the lands acquired, but he disregarded them treating the sales as fictitious, a superficial assumption, in the absence of evidence [*873] to support it. It is Mr. Kimonis’contention that the sale declarations made before the L.R.O. must he fictitious. He was in no position to substantiate this allegation by any data, of any nature, in his possession and his evidence on the matter is no more than a conjecture on his part. Declarations of sale made on pain of penalty in case of any falsity in their contents are, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, strong evidence of the purchase price paid by the purchaser to the vendor. More than that, in the instant case, Mr. Anastassiou did not content himself with the sale declarations, but undertook a private search that led him to the view that these sales were genuine in every respect.

One other factor, at which Mr. Kimonis vaguely hinted justifying his decision disregarding the sales relied upon by Mr. Anastassiou is that these sales are out of line with the general trends of sales in the area and ought to be disregarded. As a matter of general principle the value of land in an area is not determined from the sale of one or more plots of land in the area unless it appears that such sales are indicative of the trend in the values of land in the area. An individual sale may be above or below the trend and to that extent its comparison value must be qualified. The market value of land in an area is arrived at by a composite process involving the examination of all relevant factors in the area, reflected in the sale prices of land admitting of comparison, in that way making the assessment as objective as possible and minimising any element of chance. [* 874] Mr. Kimonis made one other unfounded assumption that the sales relied upon by Mr. Anastassiou may have been effected, in forced market conditions, asserting that the owners must have sold the land labouring, at the time, under financial pressure. The price fetched from the sale of a plot of land through a private treaty between the vendor and purchaser affords evidence of what the vendor considered his land to be worth and what the purchaser was prepared to offer to acquire it. We reject the contentions of the claimants advanced through Mr. Kimonis that the sales relied upon by Mr. Anastassiou as comparable were either fictitious or effected in circumstances that undermine their value as comparable sales.

Mr. Kimonis based his valuation on the sale of five plots of land abutting the main road which in essence involve the sale of three plots of land, two of which are sub-divided in smaller plots, yet contiguous one to the other. Stiere was some controversy at the trial concerning the date of sale of plot 140/3 and in particular whether the contract of sale was executed on 11th December, 1968, that is, some ten months prior to the declaration of sale. The evidence of Mr. Kimonis conflicts with what the interested parties declared before the L.R.O. and is based on hearsay information admitted in the course of the evidence in order to enable the expert to explain the premises of his valuation, but which cannot constitute evidence of the truth of the fact [*875] disclosed by such hearsay information. We accept that this sale was made on the date stated in, the declaration.

Two are the main aspects of the valuation of Mr. Kimonis:

(a) That land situate off the main road had at the material date value virtually equal to land abutting on the main road and in consequence we are invited to accept that the sales relied upon by Mr. Kimonis afford direct comparison and should guide the Court in the assessment of compensation to the claimants.

(b) Sales of land in the vicinity, off the main road, should be discarded because the declarations of sale were not genuine, an allegation we have already dismissed and to that extent the valuation of Mr, Kimonis must be treated as erroneous.

In accordance with the valuation of Mr. Kimonis the value of the lands compulsorily acquired, all of which are situate off the main road at various degrees of depth, had a similar value to land on the main road and with minor adjustments to allow for the distance of each plot from the main road should, so he maintained, determine the compensation payable. Mr. Kimonis was unable to establish the way the value of land, situate off the main road, is affected by its proximity or distance from the main road having made no study of the matter. He gave his opinion relying,

as he said, on his expert knowledge. We must confess that we [*876] experienced surprise at this suggestion of Mr. Kimonis, who

apparently feels that expert knowledge permits him to make random assumption irrespective of the data available to guide him in his assessment. Expert

knowledge equips one with the tools essential to make a scientific study of the price situation in an area and it is of

no help to make expert’s assumption in the vacuum. Had Mr. Kimonis taken the trouble to study sales of land off the main road, he would no doubt, come to the conclusion that there was a sharp difference between the value οf land abutting the main road and land situate off the main road.

It would be wise if valuers made their reports on an alternative basis so that the Court would have the advantage of their expert opinion in the event of the data supporting their valuation not being accepted by the Court as reliable. In the instant case had Mr. Kimonis not rejected arbitrarily the sales relied upon by Mr. Anastassiou, he might be in a better position to enlighten the Court as to the comparisons that should be made between the properties compulsorily acquired on the one hand and the comparable properties relied upon by the Acquiring Authority.

Mr. Anastassiou based his valuation on the sales of five plots ear-marked on the plan situate on either side of the main Larnaca-Nicosia road and off the main road. Mr. Kimonis agrees that these properties are very similar to the properties compulsorily acquired. The thesis of Mr. Anastassiou is that the five sales relied upon by him afford [* 877] an exclusive guide to the valuation of the subject lands so much so that they establish conclusively the compensation we should award for the lands compulsorily acquired. He disregarded sales of land abutting the main road, but like Mr. Kimonis, he made no study of the way land values change as one moves off the road. hr. Anastassiou left us with the impression that he made a very thorough piece of work and took pains to prepare his valuation report, going so far as to undertake a private search of the genuineness of sale declarations in the area.

The differences between the two experts as they emerged in the course of the evidence can be summed up as follows:-

It is the case for the claimants that the sale of lands on the main road should be a dominant guide in our assessment of compensation whereas it is the case for the Acquiring Authority that only the value of backland should be taken for comparison purposes as indicating the market values of land compulsorily acquired.

Before making our deliberations we propose to advert to the principles that should guide a Court in assessing compensation to the owners of land compulsorily acquired.

Principles of Compensation: -

The principles of compensation are

embodied in the provisions of section 10 of Law 15/62 that have since the [*878] enactment of the law been judicially considered in a number of

cases. These rules were not unknown to the law prior to the enactment of Law 15/62 and the whole pattern of Law 15/62 follows the lines of the pre-existing legislation, Cap. 226, mostly reproducing English principles applicable to statutory compensation first introduced by the Lands Clause Consolidation Act, 1845, extended and modified since. Law 15/62 departs from its predecessor where provision is made to set statutory compensation within the framework of Article

25 of the Constitution. In accordance with section 10(a) Law 15/62, compensation for land compulsorily acquired must be equal to the value that the land would fetch in the open market by a willing vendor at the date the notification of acquisition is published. This may he said to be the underlying principle of compensation under our law, but it has come increasingly tinder criticism including such high quarters as the House of Lords. In fact, the House of Lords went so far as to lay down that it is erroneous to treat the date of notification as the determining factor upon which the value of land should be assessed and voiced the view that even Parliament had misconceived the law on

the matter. The case is that of Birmingham Corporation v. West Mid. Baptist(1969) 3 All E.R. p. 172. Lord Reid giving the

first judgment of the House makes a powerful criticism of the rule and says at page 178 letters E-G: -

“But this would be quite illogical if, it were an absolute rule that the value of the land to [*879] the owner must be assessed as at the date of notice to treat for it has been said again and again from an early date that there is only one subject for compensation - the value of the land to the owner. And it would be not right to value one element of the land to the owner, the market value of the land, as at one date, and to value the other elements, consequential losses, as at a different date. So it appears to me that the so-called principle rests on unstable foundations”.

Lord Morris at page 184 letters B-C says:-

“If the Acquiring Authority is well content that a period of hybernation should follow, the notice to treat, it will be only reasonable if compensation is assessed on the basis of values ruling when the period comes to an end. A notice to treat does not establish the relation of vendor and purchaser between the Acquiring Authority and the owner. It does not transfer the legal or the equitable interest in the Acquiring Authority”.

We share these criticism and would, if we felt free, with respect, adopt the same approach but this is not open to us in view of the clear wording of section 10 - Law 15/62 since judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court. [*880]

Equivalence is at the root of statutory compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land, that is, the compensation must be equal to the loss that befalls the owner. The case often quoted as irrevocably establishing this principle is the Horn v. Sunderland Corporation (1941) 1 All E.R. 480 that was directly approved in the case of Moti & Another v. Republic (1968) 3 J.S.C. 285. The same principle found approval in the U.S.A. (See the case of The Monogahella Navigation v. United States (1893)

148 U.S.). It was expressly said in Moti's case that the method of direct comparison, where sufficient data are available, is the best way of arriving at a proper figure for compensation. It is said at page 291 letters C-D:-

“When there are, however, concurrent sales of comparable property the best method to be employed is the direct comparison method of the sale price of such properties with that of the land acquired, because such concurrent sales afford the best evidence as to the market value of the land to be ascertained”.

The question of compensation, in its various manifestations, was also discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ali & Another v, Vassiliko Cement Works Ltd., (1971) 3 J.S.C. p. 459, Maniera v. Republic (1.970) 10 J.S.C. p. 1115 and Kittou v. Republic (1971)8 J.S.C. p. 1045.

In arriving at a figure of just compensation, within [*881] the set up of the law, the Court is not bound to adopt the valuation of either of the two experts, its duty being to award in the light of all the material before it a sum that, duly compensates the owner for his loss. As much was decided in Ali's case supra. One other principle of compensation to which reference might usefully be made is that any enhancement in the value of the land compulsorily acquired, attributable to the scheme, promoted by the acquisition must be deducted from the market value of the land at the relevant date. (See the cases of Devotwill Investments v. Margate Corporation

(1969) 2 All E.R. p. 97 and Wilson v. The Liverpool City Council.

(1971) 1 All E.R, p. 628).

Before we revert to the facts of the case and make our findings, we shall concern ourselves with two matters that present some complication:

(a) It has been argued on behalf of the Acquiring Authority that sales subsequent to the publication of the notification of acquisition should be disregarded because

(i) They include an element of enhancement brought about in consequence of works carried out pursuant to the undertaking for which the land was compulsorily acquired and therefore should be disregarded.

(ii) Sales after acquisition are not comparable within the meaning of the law in that they disclose facts unknown at the relevant date. [*882]

In principle there is no objection to the ascertainment of the value by reference to transactions after the date of publication of notification, if they can be adjusted to market conditions, on or before that date, so that no element of value unascertainable or unforeseeable at the date of notification is taken into account. (See Cripps

- Compulsory Acquisition of Land, 11th edition p. 899). In the present case there is no evidence that the establishment of the industrial estate has enhanced the value of land in the area. Theoretically, the creation of an industrial estate may enhance or reduce the value of land in the surrounding area and we can make no assumption about it. In the instant ease the sale of 196-9 affords to our comprehension an indication of the potential the land had at the material date. One other point deserving consideration is whether the prices paid by the Acquiring Authority to the several owners of land compulsorily acquired after an agreement constitute sales that afford material for comparison in the context of section 10(a). On the face of them, such contracts embody an agreement for the sale of land on the self-same day the notice to acquisition was published and to that extent one might argue that they afford evidence of the price of land in the locality. On the other hand, such sales could not be treated as sales of land in open market conditions reflecting the views of interested parties since the vendor was not a willing seller. Such evidence is in general not of a reliable nature, although admissible and of some relevance, (See Stockbridge Mill Co.,[* 883] Ltd. v. Central Land Board

(1954) 1 W.L.R. 886 - Also Cripps - 11th edition p. 900.

Having gone through the evidence before us with great care, we make the following findings:-

(a) The sales of land relied upon by Mr. Anastassiou refer to land comparable in many respects to the subject properties, but we cannot treat these sales exclusively as determining the value of land situate off the main road. At one point of his seidence Mr. Anastassiou made reference to an unquoted sale of land on the main road and land immediately adjacent and behind, saying that the latter fetched half the price of the former. If this was to guide him in his assessment then why is his offer in Reference 8/71 plot 60 on exhibit 1 restricted to only £70? After all, the land is situate in close proximity to the main read. Whereas, Mr. Anastassiou agrees that land abutting the main road, of an appropriate width, could fetch at the relevant date £650.- and to that extent agrees with Mr. Kimonis, and whereas he had as he said come across some data that gave a hintsight of the change in the value of land as one moved off the road, he disregarded the value of land situate on the main road as being of any relevance in making his valuation. In making our assessment of the valuation of the land we must take into consideration all available data that qualify the value of land in the area, all those factors that were likely to influence a prudent willing vendor in fixing a price for his [*884] land and a purchase in making an offer to buy including the intrinsic circumstances of each plot of land, its proximity to the main road, access to the road and shape of the land. One can only consider the sale of one or more plots of land as being directly comparable and therefore determining the value of the subject property only after one first decides in the light of the available material that such sales disclose an unbending trend of values in the area. After sifting the evidence before us, as well as we could, whereas we agree with Mr. Anastassiou that the lands subject matter of his comparable sales bear close comparison to the land acquired we are unable to share his view that the prices fetched from the sales of these lands give an altogether accurate guide of the value of lands situate off the main road. We disagree with Mr. Anastassiou that the prices fetched from the sale of land abutting the main road was an irrelevant consideration and had no bearing on the values of land off the main road.

In the light of all the evidence before us we find:

(1) There was a sharp contrast between the value of land abutting the main road and land situate off the main road. The difference was great.

(2) The value of lands decreased as one moved away from the main road, depending on the distance and our finding is that the element of proximity to the main road had [*885] a direct bearing on the value of land, a factor to which Mr. Anastassiou paid very little importance except in

Ref.13/71. The evidence before us on this aspect of the case. is. not as clear as it should be and this is regretted, We

shall endeavour, as best as we can, in the light of the material before us. to articulate this differential.

(3) The shape of land and access to a road are factors that had a bearing on the value of land.

The suggestion of Mr, Anastassiou that land nearer to Larnaca abutting the main road included within the industrial estate could fetch £650.- whereas land situate within the same strip again on the main road at a distance of 2,500 ft. from the former would only fetch £350,- remains unsupported. Judging from the sale prices of plot 34/1 and plot 962 and all the data available before the Court, we disagree with Mr. Anastassiou that the difference between land situate within this rather narrow strip on the main road varies as much as Mr. Anastassiou suggested. Whereas, we incline to accept that the factor of proximity to the town and the shape of the land would have a bearing on its price, the difference was a small one.

For the purposes of our assessment we have divided the lands, subject properties, into four zones, according to the. proximity of the several plots to the main road - Zone (a), (a2), (b), ( c) and

(d) marked in red pencil on exhibit 1. Prices with each zone were similar except [*886] for minor adjustments necessary to account for such factors as shape of the land and access to a road.

Reference 1/71;

Zone (D)

It is a big plot of land of a regular shape abutting a secondary rural road of an extent of seven donums, one evlek and 1,900 sq. ft. We award £150 per donum.

Reference 2/71:

Zone (B)

Field two donums 1,200 sq. ft. in extent. We award £200 per donum of land.

Reference 3/71;

Three plots.

Two situate in zone "B" for which we award £200.- per donum and one in Zone "D" for which we award £125.- per donum.

Reference 4/71:

Zone (C)

A field of one domain, 1800 sq. ft, in extent. We award £150.- per donum.

Reference 5/71:

Zone (C)

A field of one donum, one evlek and 1200 sq. ft. in extent. We award £150 per donum.[* 887]

Reference 6/71:

Zone (C)

A field two donums, 200 sq. ft. in extent. We award £150.- per donum.

Reference 7/71:

Two plots one situate in Zone (C) and one in

Zone (D).

For the plot in (C) Zone - £150.- per donum.

For the plot in (B) Zone - £125.- per donum.

Reference 8/71:

Three plots situate in Zones (A2) - (C) (D).

Plot in Zone (A2) - £250.- per donum.

Plot in Zone (C) - £150.- per donum.

Plot in Zone (D) - A Mg part of this plot - though classified as falling in Zone (D) - comes under Zone (C). We award £135.- per donum.

Reference 9/71:

Zone (C)

A field, two donums, 3 evleks, 700 sq. ft. in extent.

We award £150.- per donum.

Reference 10/71:

A field, one donum, one evlek, 600 sq. ft. in extent.[*888]

Zone (B).

We award £.200.- per donum of land.

Reference 11/71:

A field, one donum and 2800 sq. ft. in extent.

Zone (A).

We award £350.- per donum.

Reference 12/71:

A field, one donum and 2 evleks in extent.

Zone (B).

We award £200.- per donum of land.

Reference l3/7l:

The property is situate in Zone (C) (two plots).

We award £150.- per donum.

The necessary calculations to be made by the Registry before the Order is drawn up.

Interest:[*]…

Suggestions for the Reform of the Law:

(l) The Constitutional drafters were very alert in making provision that compensation to the owners of [*889] expropriated land should be just and paid in advance. The law as it stands pays only lip-service to the dictates of the Constitution and its provisions as applied in practice may lead to injustice. In practice compensation is paid years after the publication of notification to acquisition, hut despite this the law insists that the. value of the land he determined as at the date of publication of the relevant notice. In England, as already indicated, they have been able to do away with this rule and. believe that we should do likewise in Cyprus. It is unrealistic to assess compensation at a notional date of the past, that often has no relevance to present price trends and claim that in this way we compensate the owner for his loss. The money in the pocket of the claimant might lead to another investment that might off-set the effects of inflation.

(2) Long delays are observed in the determination of compensation payable to the owners, not always in fairness, due to lack of diligence on the part of Acquiring Authorities and often attributable to delay on the part of claimants to prosecute their claims. Be that as it may, a more expeditious method must be adopted for the determination of compensation. One possible way of achieving this end might be found in the following suggestion we make. The offer of compensation should be made simultaneously with the sanctioning of the acquisition and embodied in the order whereupon the claimant, failing agreement, would be free to come to Court within a specified period of at most 12 [*890] months to determine compensation. Failing such recourse to the Court the offer shall he deemed as accepted and the land registered in the Acquiring Authority.

Upon payment of the above specified amount of compensation to the claimants, subject to any deductions permitted under the law, the properties, the subject-matter of these references, will vest in the Acquiring Authority.

In the case of Kittou v. Republic

(1971) 8 J.S.C. p. 1045, the Supreme Court emphasized that the award of costs is a matter within the discretion of the Court. In the exercise of our discretion, we award the claimants in all references the sum of £150.- advocates' costs and £50.- valuer’s fees.

Judgment and order for costs

as aforesaid.

[*] On the question of interest see (1975) 1 J.S.C. 34 and (1975) 5 J.S.C. 711.