9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (7) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 500/- per month was offered as compensation to the appellant, but the appellant did not agree that it was the proper compensation. He contended that he was to receive ₹ 600/- per month as compensation. In view of this dispute an Arbitrator was appointed as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). When the matter was taken up by the Arbitrator, the claimant gave his assessment of compensation at ₹ 600/- per month from 8-7-1954 to 31-3-1961, at ₹ 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961 to 1-4-1965 and at ₹ 2,500/- per month from 1-4-1965 to 31-3-1971. He, in support of his assessment relied mainly on the ground that the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1961 up-to-date. 4. Sri S. L. Simha, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-claimant, urged that it is common knowledge that rents of buildings in Bangalore, and in particular in that locality, have gone on rising from year to year and therefore the claim of compensation, at ₹ 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961 put forward by the appellant-claimant is the proper assessment of compensation and he is entitled to it. He further pointed out that even the Bangalore Corporation authorities assessed the annual letting value of the property from 1-4-1961 on the basis of ₹ 1,500/- per month and that would constitute sufficient material for this court to hold that the just and proper assessment of compensation that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the learned Arbitrator, after scrutinising the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, has held that enhancement of compensation, which had been once fixed, is not permitted under the provisions of the Act. But we are unable to see how such a contention arises under the facts and circumstances of this case. It is undisputed that the property in question was requisitioned on 8-7-1954 and the compensation offered was ₹ 500/- per month and further that the appellant-claimant did not accept that amount and contended that he ought to receive ₹ 600/- per month. It is because of this dispute that an Arbitrator was appointed under Section 8 of the Act and the matter dragged on and ultimately the Arbitrator passed the Award in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(d) of the Act reads as follows: Section 8(1) Where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act, there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out, that is to say : x x x x x (2) at the commencement of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, the Central Government and the person to be compensated shall state what in their respective opinion is a fair amount of compensation. This provision itself gives a right to the claimant to state before the Arbitrator at the commencement of the proceedings as to what in his opinion is the fair amount of compensation. There is no provision in the Act analogous to Section 25 of the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he actual rental that the building was fetching was not ₹ 1,500/- per month but only ₹ 600/- per month. The fact that the tax assessed by the Corporation authorities on the basis of rental of ₹ 1,500/- per month, was reduced in revision does not mean that the rent of the building in question was something less than ₹ 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961, This material is sufficient to establish that the just and proper assessment of compensation of this building is ₹ 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961 as claimed by the appellant-claimant. We are of opinion that he is entitled to the same. 8. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, in so far as it pertains to the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
