Union of India vs Kaulan Devi and others

Viney Mittal, J.—A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the

official gazette on December 2, 1977. Land and superstructures standing thereupon were intended to be acquired. A notification under Section 6

of the Act was published on July 5, 1978 acquiring the aforesaid property. A separate award with regard to the agricultural lands and the lands

underneath the construction and the abadi land was given. The said award is no more under challenge in the present appeal. The claim in the

present appeal is only with regard to the value of the super structure.

Since the construction of the houses and super structures did not fall under any standard type of construction and as such the PWD schedule of

rates could not be made applicable for evaluating the aforesaid structures. The Land Acquisition Collector appointed Shri B.L. Chhabra, Engineer

in the Military Estate Office, Pathankot to evaluate the aforesaid structures. Shri Chhabra carried out the measurements of all the buildings of the

village including the structures involved in acquisition proceedings and classified those structures in different categories. The inventory was

prepared. The said inventory was submitted to PWD authorities with the request that they should find out per square foot cost price of each

category. Thereafter the PWD authorities assessed the valuation with the help of cost of construction so worked out by Shri B.L. Chhabra. The

said valuation assessed by PWD authorities was accepted by the Land Acquisition Collector. On that basis, the compensation was assessed.

The claimant felt dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and requested for referring the matter

under Section 18 of the Act.

According to the claimant, the Land Acquisition Collector, while determining the amount of compensation for the structures had not taken into

consideration the rising prices and other relevant material and the compensation was assessed merely on the basis of the report of the Military

Estate Office. A grievance was made by the claimant that the Military Estate Office was in fact acquiring department and, therefore, the valuation

assessed by the said department could not be taken to be a fair valuation of the market value of the acquired structures. She claimed Rs. 20,000/

as compensation for her acquired structure.

The respondents contested the demand of the claimant and maintained that the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector was on the

basis of rates supplied by the PWD authorities and, therefore, the said compensation was absolutely just and proper and being a fair compensation

and no further enhancement was required.

Before the learned District Judge both the parties led evidence.

The claimant examined Jai Krishan, AW1 who deposed that after visiting the spot and doing the measurements of the acquired house, a site plan

Ex.A1 had been prepared. Shri B.D. Gupta appeared as AW2. He was a retired Sub Divisional Engineer, Pathankot. On the basis of site plan

Ex.A1 and after verifying its correctness at the spot, he prepared the estimates of the acquired property. The estimates were submitted vide report

Ex.A2. He deposed that he had prepared the aforesaid report as per the MES standard schedule of rates for the year 1975. The amount so

worked out was enhanced by 10% in order to make it upto date for the year 1977. According to Shri Gupta the value of the acquired house on

the relevant date was Rs. 19,700/. Kishori Lal, ASI appeared as AW3. He deposed that he was tenant of the claimant. He further deposed that

he used to pay monthly rent of Rs. 60/. The claimant''s son Gurdial Singh appeared as AW4. He deposed that the acquired house was constructed

in 1970 and on its construction Rs. 20,000/ was spent. He further deposed that the acquired house was let out to Kishori Lal, ASI for one year on

payment of monthly rent of Rs. 60/.

In contrast to the aforesaid evidence, the respondents produced B.L. Chhabra as RW2. He deposed that during the acquisition proceedings he

had remained associated with the Land Acquisition Collector. The whole of the abadi of village Athotarwan was acquired. He visited the village

and took the measurements of various houses including the acquired land and as the structure did not fall under any standard type of construction,

their inventory was prepared classifying different structures into different classes and the inventory was submitted to Shri K.L. Jetli, Sub Divisional

Engineer, RW1 who had deposed that he had worked out the reports submitted by B.L. Chhabra and thereafter returned the papers by appending

thereto the prices worked out in accordance with the common schedule of rate of Punjab PWD department and the sanction premium for bringing

their rates upto date. As per RW1, the estimate prepared by Shri Chhabra was adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector and in accordance with

the said estimate the compensation of Rs. 9,407/ of the acquired house was granted.

The learned District Judge after noticing the aforesaid evidence came to the conclusion that the estimates submitted by the two experts were at

variance. It was noticed by the learned District Judge that it was admitted that the acquired house was like other structures in the village. The

learned District Judge after perusal of the respective reports submitted by the two respective experts found that it was not proper to accept anyone

of the two reports.

The claimant had also produced one Kishori Lal AW3. The aforesaid Kishori Lal deposed that during 197677 he resided in the acquired

house on payment of Rs. 60/ as a monthly rent. This witness was employed as an Assistant Sub Inspector. He was a tenant of one room and one

verandah. Since no other evidence was available to assess the market value and nothing was shown by the respondents that the evidence of

Kishori Lal was in any manner not believable, therefore, the learned District Judge accepted that statement of the aforesaid Kishori Lal, AW3.

Thereafter the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the aforesaid rent of Rs. 60/ per month for one unit and since the acquired

structure comprised of two units, therefore, the actual monthly rent of the property in dispute came out to be Rs. 120/ per month. Thus, the annual

rental value of the acquired house was assessed at Rs. 1,440/. The multiplier of 10 was applied. Accordingly, the value of the acquired land was

assessed at Rs. 14,440/ was accepted as the market value of the acquired house. The claimant was also held entitled to solatium at the rate of

15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking over of possession of the acquired structures till the deposit of the amount.

The Union of India has felt aggrieved present the enhancement awarded by the learned District Judge. Therefore, it filed the against appeal.

I have heard Shri P.C. Goyal, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajive Bhalla, the learned counsel for the respondentclaimants and

with their assistance have also through the record of the case.

In my considered opinion, the assessment of the market value with regard to the super structure as assessed by the learned District Judge is

absolutely just and proper. Nothing has been shown that the learned District Judge has in any manner given excessive compensation or has

adopted such method of valuation which was contrary to law.

The learned counsel for the respondentclaimants relies upon The State of Kerala v. P.P. Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201 and Joginder

Singh Saini v. The State of Haryana and another, 1981 PLJ 24.

In the State of Kerala''s case (supra) and Joginder Singh Saini''s case (supra) it has been held that the rental value of acquired building could

always furnish the guidelines for arriving at the market value of the acquired land.

In view of the law laid down in P.P. Hassan Koya''s case (supra) and Joginder Singh Saini''s case (supra), I do not find any scope for

interference in the amount assessed by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant being without any merit is

dismissed.

Before parting with this judgment, an argument raised by Shri Rajive Bhalla, the learned counsel for the respondentclaimant may be noticed.

Shri Bhalla has submitted that in fact that award was pronounced by the learned District Judge on February 25, 1984 and, therefore, the claimant

was entitled to the statutory benefits as per the amended law. In this regard, Shri Bhalla has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the

Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs etc., 1989(1) RRR 552 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC

1933 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the benefit of enhanced solatium is intended by Section 30(2) of amendment Act in

respect of an award made by the Collector between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. Likewise, the benefit of the enhanced solatium is

extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984, even though it be upon

reference from an award made before April 30, 1982.

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, it is held that the claimants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits as per the

amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.