What is the legal value of the right to possession of a property?

True it is that in the present case, as in People v. Superior Court, supra, the owner retained the possession of his land following the entry of the judgment, but possession, as heretofore pointed out, is only one of the elements of value in ownership. The owners here suffered a loss for which there was no 'just compensation.' The right to sell or rent the property was practically cut off. In the present case the owners apparently received no rents, their possession was precarious, to say the least, liable as it was to be terminated at any moment. They could not safely make any improvements or repairs or alterations. Certainly there was no evidence to demonstrate that the value of the legal right to possession was equivalent to interest on the award, and we should not make any such assumption. The loss of some of the rights of full ownership (as above mentioned) are not merely incidental rights, but in our opinion constitute the loss of valuable rights and constitute a distinct damage. If payment therefor is not made then the property owner has not received 'just compensation.'