Requisition compensation must reflect fair occupation value plus separate terminal damages; reinstatement applies only in exceptional cases.

Compensation for wartime requisition of forest land is to be assessed on a fair and reasonable basis for the period of occupation, with damage caused during requisition separately valued as terminal damage. The exceptional principle of reinstatement applies only where ordinary valuation would be unfair, reinstatement is reasonably practicable, and it is genuinely intended; on these facts, it was not attracted. The proper approach was reasonable rental value for occupation and separate assessment for uprooting or cutting of trees, not reliance on a prior governmental offer or speculative afforestation costs. The compensation basis was therefore reworked to the legally recoverable items.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether compensation for forest land requisitioned during wartime could be assessed on the principle of reinstatement; (ii) what was the proper basis for determining compensation for requisition and damage to the property during occupation.

Issue (i): whether compensation for forest land requisitioned during wartime could be assessed on the principle of reinstatement.

Analysis: Compensation for requisition is to be determined for the period of occupation on a fair and reasonable basis, while damage caused during requisition is to be separately assessed as terminal damage. The principle of reinstatement is exceptional and is applied only where the nature of the property and the circumstances make ordinary valuation an unfair basis, and where reinstatement is reasonably practicable and genuinely intended.

Conclusion: The principle of reinstatement was not attracted on the facts.

Issue (ii): what was the proper basis for determining compensation for requisition and damage to the property during occupation.

Analysis: The correct approach was to assess fair compensation for the period of requisition on the footing of reasonable rental value and then separately assess the damage caused by uprooting or cutting of trees. The award made below proceeded on an erroneous footing by treating the earlier governmental offer as binding and by applying reinstatement to speculative future loss and afforestation costs. The compensation had therefore to be reworked on the proper legal basis.

Conclusion: Compensation was to be limited to fair compensation for the requisition period and separate damages for the loss actually caused, not on a reinstatement basis.

Final Conclusion: The award was set aside and the claimant's compensation was reduced to the items found legally recoverable, with each party left to bear its own costs in the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In requisition cases, compensation is confined to fair recompense for the period of occupation together with separately ascertainable terminal damages, and the exceptional doctrine of reinstatement applies only where reinstatement is reasonably practicable, genuinely intended, and not speculative or abnormal in cost.

---