9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Principle of reinstatement in assessing compensation. 2. Compensation for requisitioned property. 3. Determination of fair rental value. 4. Compensation for damage to property. 5. Onus of proving compensation amount. 6. Applicability of reinstatement principle. 7. Evidence for afforestation and compensation. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Principle of Reinstatement in Assessing Compensation: The principal question was whether the principle of reinstatement should be applied in assessing compensation for damages to a forest during requisition. The court concluded that the principle of reinstatement is not applicable in this case due to the speculative and experimental nature of the proposed afforestation scheme and the lack of evidence supporting its feasibility in Jhargram. 2. Compensation for Requisitioned Property: The property in question was requisitioned during the war and remained under requisition from 15-5-1944 to 3-5-1945. The government had removed standing trees from a large portion of the area, leading to a dispute over the compensation amount. The District Magistrate initially offered Rs. 1,21,449/2/-, later reduced to Rs. 38,377/1/-, which was not accepted by the claimant. The matter was referred to an arbitrator who awarded Rs. 3,28,325/14/-. 3. Determination of Fair Rental Value: The court emphasized that the compensation for requisitioned property should be based on the fair rental value for the period of requisition. The parties and the arbitrator failed to determine the compensation on this basis. The court referenced 'Province of Bengal v. Board of Trustees for Improvement, Calcutta' to outline the correct approach, which involves determining the market value of the land and calculating a fair percentage of return. 4. Compensation for Damage to Property: The court noted that compensation for damage inflicted during requisition should be assessed separately from the fair rental value. The claimant's compensation claim included the value of fuel plants, costs for afforestation, loss of income for 25 years, and removal of mother Sal trees. The arbitrator awarded compensation under similar heads but with different amounts. 5. Onus of Proving Compensation Amount: The court clarified that under the Defence of India Act, the burden of proving the compensation amount does not lie solely on the claimant. Both parties are required to provide necessary materials to assist the arbitrator. The arbitrator had incorrectly placed the onus on the claimant to disprove the government's offer. 6. Applicability of Reinstatement Principle: The court discussed the circumstances under which the principle of reinstatement may be applied, referencing Halsbury and Cripps on Compulsory Acquisition of Land. The principle is applicable when the income derived from the land does not constitute a fair basis for assessing its value, and there is a bona fide intention to reinstate. The court found that these conditions were not met in the present case. 7. Evidence for Afforestation and Compensation: The evidence for the feasibility and necessity of afforestation in Jhargram was deemed insufficient and speculative. Expert testimony and standard authorities on forests were referenced, but the court found the proposed afforestation scheme to be unrealistic. The claimant had not taken any steps towards afforestation, and the land was being used for other purposes. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the arbitrator were set aside. The court declared that the claimant is entitled to: 1. Compensation for the fuel trees removed: Rs. 19,291/- 2. Compensation for the removal of mother Sal trees: Rs. 11,684/- 3. Compensation for the loss of income for 20 years, including the year during which the property was under requisition: Rs. 1,47,600/- Total compensation awarded: Rs. 1,78,575/- Each party was directed to bear its respective costs due to the failure to produce necessary materials and assist the arbitrator in determining the fair amount of compensation.
|
