9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Preliminary Objection Regarding Abatement of Appeals 2. Determination of Compensation for Acquired Land 3. Valuation of Tube-Wells 4. Claim for Severance and Loss of Business 5. Interest on Compensation Awarded 6. Apportionment of Compensation Between Claimants Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Preliminary Objection Regarding Abatement of Appeals: The Advocate-General contended that the appeals had abated as the Defence of India Act, 1939, under which the land was acquired, had expired, and no effective saving clause existed for pending proceedings. The court held that the principle of law regarding the expiration of temporary statutes did not apply to this case. The acquisition of property under the Defence of India Act created permanent and vested rights for the government and the claimants. Consequently, the right to receive compensation was a vested right, and the appeals could be heard even after the Act's expiration. The court also considered the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the Defence of India Act expired, concluding that the appeals could be heard under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Determination of Compensation for Acquired Land: The court noted that under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, fair compensation should be paid in accordance with Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The land in question was primarily agricultural, with part of it being irrigated by canal and tube-wells. The court relied on the jamabandi (land records) of 1938-39 to determine the nature of the land, concluding that the majority was irrigated except for certain portions classified as banjar (uncultivated) and ghair mumkin (non-cultivable). The court determined that a hypothetical purchaser would consider the entire area, except for the ghair mumkin portion, as irrigated. Consequently, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 650 per acre for irrigated land and Rs. 125 per acre for the ghair mumkin portion. 3. Valuation of Tube-Wells: The claimants sought Rs. 2,000 per tube-well, while the Collector and the arbitrator had awarded Rs. 1,000 each. The court found the evidence provided by the claimants' witness, a retired overseer, to be irrelevant as it was based on the cost of constructing new wells rather than the present value of the existing wells. The court agreed with the arbitrator's valuation of Rs. 1,000 per well. 4. Claim for Severance and Loss of Business: Surjan Singh claimed Rs. 20,000 for severance and loss of business. The court found no evidence of loss of business or severance, noting that the claimants still owned a significant portion of land in the village. Consequently, this claim was rejected. 5. Interest on Compensation Awarded: The claimants sought interest on the additional amount awarded by the court. The court held that under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended, interest at 4% per annum should be awarded on the excess amount from the date the government took possession of the land until the date of payment. The court also noted that even if Section 28 did not apply, equity demanded that interest be awarded on this basis. 6. Apportionment of Compensation Between Claimants: The government objected to the separate claims filed by the brothers, Surjan Singh and Bachan Singh, arguing that compensation should be claimed in equal shares. The court rejected this objection, noting that the brothers had a private partition and were satisfied with compensation being assessed for the entire property acquired and paid according to their shares under the partition or without apportionment. Conclusion: The appeals by the claimants were partly accepted, and they were awarded compensation at Rs. 650 per acre for the irrigated land and Rs. 125 per acre for the ghair mumkin portion, along with Rs. 4,000 for the four wells. Additionally, they were entitled to interest at 4% per annum on the excess amount over the Collector's award. The government's appeals were dismissed without costs. The total compensation awarded to the claimants amounted to Rs. 80,762/8/-, with the claimants' appeals being accepted to the extent of Rs. 37,865/5/-.
|
