Sree Rajah Vasireddi Sree Chendra ... vs Yadavalli Kameswara Somayajulu And ... on 27 August, 1925
4. Plaintiff has also claimed compensation. It cannot be suggested that the erection of this small building has materially injured the plaintiff and it would be very difficult to fix the amount of compensation. It is, however, recognised by Napier, J. in Sankaralinga Moopanar v. Subramania Pillai (1915) 29 M.L.J. 514 that some compensation would be admissible as otherwise ryots will be enabled to convert agricultural land into town plots and take the whole increased value to themselves, but, as in this case, the buildings have not yet been erected over any considerable portion of the holding I do not consider that any compensation need be paid.