Opinion
41971.
ARGUED MAY 4, 1966.
DECIDED MAY 30, 1966.
Condemnation. Bryan Superior Court. Before Judge Durrence.
Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Richard L. Chambers, Thomas H. Harper, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, Horace E. Campbell, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, W. Roscoff Deal, for appellant.
Anderson Sanders, Cohen Anderson, Faye Sanders, for appellee.
The award of damages to the leaseholder in a condemnation proceeding based upon inconvenience and circuity of travel was unauthorized.
ARGUED MAY 4, 1966 — DECIDED MAY 30, 1966.
This was a condemnation case in which the State Highway Department condemned .059 of an acre of land owned by H. G. Edwards, et al. This .059 acre was a part of a 500-acre tract of land which had been leased by the owners to Mr. A. D. Bell for agricultural purposes. His lease was dated January 1, 1959, and expired on December 31, 1971, and provided for an annual rental of $900. Mr. Bell resided about seven miles from the property that he had under lease, and in order to reach the leased property, Mr. Bell traveled an unpaved county road. By reason of the location of I-16, it was necessary for the Highway Department to block and dead-end this unpaved county road. The Highway Department constructed a paved frontage road. In order for Mr. Bell to reach the leased property from his home by way of the paved frontage road, he was required to travel an additional one and one-half miles each way to the leased property, thereby causing him to travel an additional three miles on each trip he made to the leased property. Computing this additional mileage on his truck and tractor he estimated an additional travel cost to him of $129.37 per year and the total cost for the remainder of the lease at $836.25.
The trial court sitting without a jury awarded the owners of the condemned land damages in the amount of $50 and awarded the leaseholder damages in the amount of $757.80. The State Highway Department has appealed the judgment in behalf of the leaseholder on the ground that it was without evidence to support it.
The owner in a condemnation proceeding is entitled to just and adequate compensation for the land taken and the consequential damages to the remaining property. Under this proceeding "all occupants, tenants, lessees, licensees," etc. were made parties defendant to the action to the end that they might come into court and make claim to such interest or ownership or other rights as they may have in the property condemned or to the proceeds thereof. Any damage suffered by the leasehold estate would therefore have to be satisfied out of the proceeds awarded to the condemnee in the condemnation proceeding. The lessee is not entitled to recover damages which the owner himself would not be entitled to recover.
It is clear here that the award of damages to the lessee was based upon the inconvenience and circuity of travel occasioned by the construction of this highway. The Supreme Court in Tift County v. Smith, 219 Ga. 68 ( 131 S.E.2d 527), has clearly stated that such inconvenience and circuity of travel occasioned to the owner of property does not constitute a taking or damaging of private property so as to require compensation. It follows that the lessee of such property would also have no cause of action based upon the inconvenience caused to him in traveling to and from the leased property.
It is clear from the record that the leaseholder's access to the road upon which the leased premises abutted was not interfered with, and under the facts set forth here, this case is clearly controlled by Tift County v. Smith, 219 Ga. 68, supra. The award of damages to the appellee leaseholder was unauthorized by the evidence and the judgment appealed from must be reversed.
Judgment reversed. Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.