9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with whether the assessee, whose name is Shri Ramadhar was entitled to the gain resulting from acquisition of land situated in Bagh Majlis Sarai situated at village Wazirpur, Delhi, or whether that gain was to go to the firm, M/s. Ramadhar and Company, of which he was a partner. The facts were that a firm of this name which had six partners, originally purchased the land for a sum of Rs. 10,740 on April 9, 1957. This firm was a coloniser and dealing in purchase of land and conversion into plots and sale of the same. The firm was dissolved on May 4, 1962, and thereafter the assessee himself became its sole proprietor. On December 1, 1962, a new firm was constituted of which Ramadhar was also a partner. This had four partners. It so happened ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in this case, it may be noticed that the enquiry into the amount that is to be given by way of compensation for an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act has to be held by the Collector under section 11 of the Act by following the procedure mentioned therein. The determination of the rate of compensation, the persons to be granted compensation and other details mentioned in section 11 results in an award which is made by the Collector. Such an award has to be filed in the Collector's office and a notice has to be given to the persons interested who are not present personally or through their representative when the award is made. This is stated in section 12 of the Act. The fact that in this case, the award has one date and it was ann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1961] AIR 1961 SC 1500, the Supreme Court had occasion to determine the date when an award was made keeping in view the nature of the rights that flowed from such an award. It was held that the date of the award was the date on which the party concerned was informed of the same. We would also hold that the date of the award was the date of its announcement and not the date when it was signed. Hence, the date December 15, 1962, would be the relevant date and not November 9, 1962. In this view of the matter, we have to determine who was entitled to get the compensation on December 15, 1962, which was after the partnership had come into being. Thus, the compensation would be payable only to the firm. We note that the firm has already been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
