9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Compensation entitlement of an occupancy tenant. 2. Specific claim requirement for compensation. 3. Revision of claim under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Compensation entitlement of an occupancy tenant The State of U.P. appealed against the decision of the Tribunal regarding compensation for land acquisition. The appellant argued that the respondent, an occupancy tenant, was not entitled to compensation as the State owned the property. The Court rejected this contention, citing a previous ruling that occupancy tenants are entitled to compensation against the Zamindar. The Tribunal's decision to award compensation to the respondent was upheld based on this legal precedent. Issue 2: Specific claim requirement for compensation The appellant contended that the respondent did not make specific claims for various items in her objection under Section 9 of the Act, thus the Tribunal should not have awarded compensation for those items. However, the Court referred to legal provisions stating that a claimant need not specify the amount for each sub-head of compensation, and failure to do so does not bar the Tribunal from awarding compensation. The Tribunal's decision to award compensation for the items was deemed legally sound. Issue 3: Revision of claim under Section 9 The appellant argued that since the respondent did not revise her claim under Section 9, she should not be awarded compensation for fixtures, trees, and crops. However, the Court found that the respondent had put forward her claim in applications under Section 18 of the Act, and the Tribunal had rightly awarded compensation based on Section 25(3) of the Act. The Court rejected the technical challenge to the judgment, emphasizing that the respondent was justified in pressing her claim. In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to award compensation to the respondent, modifying the judgment to increase the solatium and interest rates in line with a subsequent amendment. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
