9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Variation of compensation for compulsory requisitioning of premises in dispute. 2. Principles for ascertainment of compensation under s. 19 of the Defence of India Act. 3. Evaluation of potential value of the premises in dispute. 4. Compensation for the lift used by government departments. Analysis: 1. The appeal was against the High Court's order varying the arbitrator's decision on compensation for the requisitioned premises. The appellant owned the premises in dispute, which were requisitioned by the State of West Bengal. The initial compensation offered was contested, leading to arbitration and subsequent appeals. The High Court set aside the arbitrator's decision, remanded the case, and established principles for determining fair rent under the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The High Court directed the assessment of compensation based on the notional fair rent of a hypothetical tenant, excluding temporary restrictions like Rent Control Orders. The appellant revised the compensation claim post-remand, emphasizing the locality's rent prevailing in 1943 for similar buildings. The new arbitrator's award was challenged, leading to the High Court's decision to calculate compensation based on floor area rates, ultimately setting the monthly compensation at &8377; 2,850. 3. The appellant argued that the High Court erred by not considering the potential value of the premises in a prime commercial location. The arbitrator had evaluated this potential value at 10% of the determined amount, emphasizing the building's special value to the Controller of Army Factory Accounts. The High Court rejected this additional award but acknowledged the need for compensation for the lift used by government departments. 4. The High Court's assessment of compensation for the lift was challenged, with the appellant contending that the awarded &8377; 77 per month was insufficient considering the lift's usage by government departments. The Supreme Court agreed that &8377; 3,200 per month would be a fair compensation, enhancing the amount and partially allowing the appeal. The appellant was granted proportionate costs for the successful claim.
|
