1980 (7) TMI 274 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Value of compensation for vacant lands.
2. Value of compensation for buildings on acquired lands.
3. Jurisdiction of the Special Land Acquisition Judge to enhance compensation.
4. Cross-objections filed by claimants regarding compensation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Value of Compensation for Vacant Lands:
In F.A. Nos. 437 and 440, the primary issue was the compensation for vacant lands. The Collector initially awarded compensation at Rs. 53,525 per acre, which was enhanced by the Civil Court to Rs. 3,000 per decimal (.01 acres). The Civil Court based its decision on Ext. 9, a sale deed from 1957, which indicated a value of Rs. 4,000 per katha (.015 acres). The Court reasoned that land values had likely increased by June 1962 due to inflation. The Government Pleader argued that transactions from 1961 should have been considered instead, but the Court found these transactions unreliable due to lack of evidence and potential familial bias. Consequently, the Court upheld the enhanced compensation, deeming it reasonable given the continuous rise in land values.

2. Value of Compensation for Buildings on Acquired Lands:
In F.A. Nos. 438 and 441, the issue was the compensation for buildings. The Civil Court awarded compensation based on the capital value of the buildings, calculated as twenty times the annual income. The Government Pleader contested the evidence of income, but the Court found sufficient corroboration from tenant testimonies and counter-foil rent receipts. The Court maintained the compensation awarded by the Civil Court, finding no merit in the State's appeal.

In F.A. Nos. 439 and 442, the issue also pertained to building compensation, specifically for buildings owned by Jyoti Finance Company. The Civil Court found the monthly income from the shops to be Rs. 925, based on tenant testimonies and counter-foil rent receipts. The Government Pleader's objections were dismissed, and the Court upheld the Civil Court's findings, affirming the compensation awarded.

3. Jurisdiction of the Special Land Acquisition Judge to Enhance Compensation:
The Government Pleader argued that the Special Land Acquisition Judge lacked jurisdiction to enhance compensation beyond what was claimed under Section 9 of the Act, citing Section 25(2). However, the Court noted that Section 9(3) requires notice to be served on all interested parties, and there was no evidence that such notice was served. The Court referenced a precedent (Sushila Devi v. State of Bihar) to support its stance that the absence of evidence of notice precluded the application of Section 25(1). The rate report indicated that objections under Section 9 had been filed, further undermining the Government Pleader's argument. Consequently, the Court rejected the jurisdictional objection, affirming the enhanced compensation.

4. Cross-Objections Filed by Claimants Regarding Compensation:
The claimants filed cross-objections in F.A. Nos. 438, 439, 441, and 442, contesting the Civil Court's assessment of their rental income. The Court found the Civil Court's findings on rental income to be well-supported by evidence, including tenant testimonies and counter-foil rent receipts. The Court dismissed the cross-objections, finding no merit in the claimants' arguments.

In F.A. No. 437, the claimant S.K. Thacker argued that the entire land constituted part of a petrol pump, and he was receiving Rs. 225 per month as rent from Burmah Shell. The Court found this claim untenable, as only the land was acquired, and other properties remained with the claimants.

Conclusion:
The appeals by the State were dismissed, and the cross-objections were partially allowed in F.A. Nos. 437 and 440, with statutory compensation and interest to be paid proportionately from the date of dispossession. The cross-objections in other appeals were dismissed. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.