Dulat Act, Shamsher Bahadur ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Improvement Trust Tribunal Constitued under the United Provinces Town Improvement Act, as applied to Delhi (hereinafter called the Act) confirming the award of the collector ofrs. 38,816/4. 00in respect of the land and superstructure acquired by the Government for the Delhi Improvement Trust for its Delhi-Ajmeri Gate, Slum, Clearance Scheme. In this appeal of the claimant Kidar Nath. The compensation is sought to be "enhanced by Rs. 40,000. 00". The first notice under section 36 of the Act was given on 19th of March, 1938, and the details of the scheme were given therein. The notification sanctioning the scheme under section 42 was not, however, published till 29th of April, 1946. The notification, it appears, had been delayed on account of the exigency of war in between the dated of notice and notification. The property of the a]-pell?nt which was acquired consists of Katra built on land measuring 1152. 8 square yards. The property so acquired actually vested in the Improvement Trust on 28th of January, 1952. The Special Land Acquisition Collector made his sward on 16th of May, 1951. The compensation under the Act is awarded on the basis of present user and its provisions rule out altogether the potential value of the land which has to be compensated for. ( 2 ) THE claimant adduced no support for his claim before the Collector who accepted the evidence of the Delhi Municipal Committee with regard to the rental value of the Property, being Rs. 2226. 00 per annum. Deducting l Oper cent on account of repairs and Rs. 6 2/9/6 for house-tax from the figure the net annual value was fixed at Rs. 1940/13. 00 and the compensation was made payable on its capitalised value for a period of twenty years, the amount so awarded being Rs. 38,816/4. 00 ( 3 ) BEFORE the Improvement Trust Tribunal, there was some dispute with regard to the actual area which had been acquired the claimant s case being that the land taken under the scheme was 1200 square yards and not 1152. 8 square yards. This matter was decided against the claimant and is now longer urged by Mr. Hardy, the learned counsel for the appellant. 8 square yards. This matter was decided against the claimant and is now longer urged by Mr. Hardy, the learned counsel for the appellant. The Improvement Trust Tribunal also accepted the evidence which had been adduced before the Collector for determination of the annual rental value. The Petitioner s claim under section 48-A of the Act was found untenable. In the result, the Tribunal affirmed the Collector s award. ( 4 ) IN appeal before us Mr. Faidy and Mr. Tyagi have urged three points. It is contereded in the first place that the net annual rental value has not been property computed and the compensation should be calculated on 33^ years capitalised value and not 20. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to compensation under section 48-A of the Act for the delay which has been occasioned in giving the award. It is lastly contended that the claimant has been unjustifiably denied the 15 percent solatium under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, this particular concession not having been superseded by the provisions of the Act. ( 5 ) IN examining the first contention of the learned counsel it has to be observed that there is not evidence of any sales determine the market value of the land acquired though it does not seem to be denied that in other cases of compensation which have been before this court relating to this very scheme awards have been made on the basis of Rs. 15. 00 per square yard. Reference may be made to R. F. A. No. 112-D of 1954 decided by Chief Justice Khosla and myself on 25th October,1961 where it was said that in R. F. A. No. 40-D of 1953. R. F. A, No. 45-D of 1953, R. F. A. No. 12-D of 1954, R. F. A. No. 54-D of 1953, and R. F. A. No. 81-D of 1952. compensation was awarded at Rs. 15. 00 per square yard. As observed in the award of the Tribunal, the compensation at this rate for 1152. 8 square yards of the land of the appellant coroes to Rs. 17. 292. 00 to which should be added the cost of the sperstructure which has been estimated according to the C. P. W. D. estimates of 1938 at Rs. 16. 436. As observed in the award of the Tribunal, the compensation at this rate for 1152. 8 square yards of the land of the appellant coroes to Rs. 17. 292. 00 to which should be added the cost of the sperstructure which has been estimated according to the C. P. W. D. estimates of 1938 at Rs. 16. 436. 00, the total value of the building in accordance with this calculation comes to Rs. 33. 728/4. 00 which is less than the amount awarded by the Collector and the Tribunal. There is another judgment of this Court of Falfhaw J. (as the Chief Justice then was) in R. F. A. No. 88-D of 1955. decided on 17th of February, 1961, where in dealing with the self-same, Delhi- Ajmeri Gate Slum Clearance Scheme it was observed as under:- "a very large number of cases arising from this very scheme have come before this Court in appeal and it so happened that quite a considerable number of these appeals were heard by Mehar Singh J. and myself in 1957 and 1958 and in the course of these decisions we evolved a formula by which the value of the houses was calculated in two different ways and we allowed owner whichever was the higher value. One method of calculation was based on allowing Rs. 15. 00 per square yard as the value of the site and the value of the superptrocture as calculated by an engineer of the Central P. W. D. The other method was the one which has been adopted in the present case. namely, twenty times the net annual rental value, and I do not see how I sitting as a Single Judge can possibly depart from the formula set out above". ( 6 ) THE question of compensation thus per-force has to be determined on basis of the net rental value. The evidence on which reliance has been placed is furnished by Narain Parshad R. W. 1. who is a clerk of the House-tax Department of the Delhi Municipal Committee. According to his evidence which has not been challenged in cross-examination, the record of the house-tax of the Committee upto the year 1946 was burnt. The Delhi Improvement Trust had asked the Delhi Municipal Committee to prepare a list of the houses with their annual rental value in the year 1938 falling within the Delhi-Ajmeri Gate Slum Clearance Scheme. According to his evidence which has not been challenged in cross-examination, the record of the house-tax of the Committee upto the year 1946 was burnt. The Delhi Improvement Trust had asked the Delhi Municipal Committee to prepare a list of the houses with their annual rental value in the year 1938 falling within the Delhi-Ajmeri Gate Slum Clearance Scheme. A list was prepared accordingly and according to Exhibit R. 1. which this fitness produced, house No. 761-A (which is the Superstructures) has an annual rental value of Rs. 2226. 00. The evidence produced by the claimant consists of the statements of tendats (P. W. 1 to Public Witness 32) who have all deposed that the original rents which theyhad paid to the landlord had been subsequently enhanced. If the original rents which these tenants were paying are taken in to reckoning, the figure of the entire rental value would not be at variance with the one which has been given by the clerk of the House-tax Department. The evidence of enhancement cannot be accepted because its proof has not been satisfactorily adduced. Balwant Singh P. W. 39, who used to realize rent on behalf of the claiment, appeared in court on 12th August, 1954, and produced an account after the other witnesses had given evidence. It is true that if the statement of account given in Exhibit P4 is accepted, the dental value would come to a much higher figure than Rs. 2226. 00, but this cannot be accepted because Balwant Singh did not submit this statement earlier-although the evidence on behalf of the petitioner had commenced a long time before he gaves his diposition, and secondly, because this witness had an opportunity to fill up the lacunae which had been found in the evidence of the witnesses. None of the numerous tenants who appeared an behalf of the claimant produced evidence of receipt of enhanced rent and naturally their tetimony on this score becomes valueless. On this part of the case our conclusion, therefore, is that as there begin no evidence of market value in 1938 recourse has to be made to the capitalisation of the rental value however unsatisfactory that basis for determination may be. On this part of the case our conclusion, therefore, is that as there begin no evidence of market value in 1938 recourse has to be made to the capitalisation of the rental value however unsatisfactory that basis for determination may be. It is also our view that the evidence adduced by Balwant Singh Public Witness 39 is unsatisfactory the statements of the tenants of the landlord for the reasons mentioned aforesaid cannot be accepted in toto. It is not disputed that if the rental value is taken to be Rs. 2226. 00 per annum, the house tax Rs. 62/9/6 and 10 per cent for repairs have to be account for in arriving at the net rental value which comes to the figure of Rs. 1940/13. 00 as reached by the Collector. ( 7 ) THE second wing of this argument relates to the question of capitalisation. Mr. Hardy submits that the evidence adduced in this case in the shape of Exhibit Public Witness 21/3 discloses that the interest on Government securities in 1938 was 3 percent and the compensation should be reached by multiplying net rental value with at 30 and not 20. The counsel refers to the Division Bench judgment of king and Patanjali Sastri JJ. in Land Acquisition Officer, Calicut v. S. V. Subba Rao", where it was observed that :- "when the rate of interest on the Government securities is 3 per- cent at the time of acquisition of site and building thereon the proper course to determine the value of the property for the purpose of awarding compensation is to capitalise the annual rental value of the property at 33 1/3 purchase according to the practice of the Court in the Madras presidency of calculating the profits from any form of landed property as equal to the profits made by investing money in giltedged securities. " As is manifest, this case refers to the practice of the Madras Courts. The same observations would apply to another Madras decision of Raj amannar C. J. and Rajagopal an J. in Radhakrishna v. Province of Madras" where it was said that:- "the proper method of valuation to be adopted relating to house and ground situated in a municipality and fetching regular income is to assess the value on the basis of capitalisation of the net annual income. The number of years purchase to be adopted for capitalisation is to be arrived at by taking into account the interest yeilded by Government securities at the time of the notification under section 4 (1) of the act. Where at the time of acquistion the giltedged securities were carrying interest at 3 percent the annual rental value was capitalised 33 1/3 years purchase. "it is no doubt true that on the authorities of Madras Court the capitalisation should have been done on the basis of 33 1/3 and not 20 but it has to be emphasised that no rule of law is laid down but only a practice, which springs from the relationship which the rate of interest on Government securities bears with the value of money at the relevant time. In our own Court, a bench of Mahajan J. (later Chief Justice Mahajan) and Teja Singh J. In the Governor General in Council v. Hafiz Ghias-ud Din said thus :- "whether capitalised value to be given on 16 years or 20 years or 25 years basis is always a difficult question and this method can only be adopted if no satisfactory evidence of other kinds is available to estimate the market-value. "in another Bench decision reported in the same volume (Teja Singh and Bhandari JJ.)in Governor-General of India in Council v. Bhola, it was said that the assessment of market value of a property by capitalising the rent for a number of years is not a satisfactory method at all and should be resorted to only if no other method is available and such capitalisation must depend upon the facts proved in each case and the previous prexalent rate of interest. There is no immutable rule on this subject and though the prevailing rate of interest is an important consideration, the general practice is a question which cannot be left out of account. Now, the Delhi-Ajmeri Gate Slum Clearance Scheme involved a number of acquisitions and as appears from the extract of the judgment of Chief Justice Falshaw cited aforesaid, the uniform practice has been to award compensation either at the rate of Rs. 15. 00 per square yard or 20 years capitalised net annual rental value. Reference was made to a large number of judicial decisions but there is no decision of this court in which capitalisation was done on the basis of 33^ years. 15. 00 per square yard or 20 years capitalised net annual rental value. Reference was made to a large number of judicial decisions but there is no decision of this court in which capitalisation was done on the basis of 33^ years. The decisions made by Judges have got to be shaped on the pattern of precedents in the interests of reasonable uniformity which is an essential attribute of law. Mr. Tyagi who has appeared in a number of compensation cases in this court has not been able to cite a single instance where the rule of mutiplying the net annual rental value by 20 has been departed from. He further submits that this is perhaps the last of the appeals relating to the Delhi-Ajmeri Gate Slum clearance Scheme. It would be singularly inappropriate if we depart from normal practice adopted in all other cases of compensation relating to this very scheme disposed of by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the method of calculation adopted by the Collector andthe Tribunal is in accord with the previous decisions and in the circumstances it provides a good guide for the award of compensation. ( 8 ) IT is next contended by the counsel that though the first notice was given in 193 8, the award was made on 16th of may, 1951, and the aid of section 48-A under the Schedule of the Act is invoked for the proposition that compensation is payable on account of delay. Under sub- section (1) of section 48-A of the Sechedule it is thus provided :- "if within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6 in respect of any land, the Collector has not made an award under section 11 with respect to such land, the owner of the land shall, unless he has been to a material extend respon- sible for the delay, be entitled to receive compensation for the damage suffered by him in consequence of the delay. "the notice equivalent to section 6 was given on 9th of April, 1946 and the award was made on 16th of March 1951. The tenants have been in possession of the property acquired right till the time of the award. "the notice equivalent to section 6 was given on 9th of April, 1946 and the award was made on 16th of March 1951. The tenants have been in possession of the property acquired right till the time of the award. It is important to observe that compensation is to be assessed for damage suffered in consequence of the delay. There was no plea of damage and no proof has been addused. It would be embarking in the field of speculation at this stage to determine compensation on this score for the first time in appeal. We see no merit in this contention and have no hesitation in repelling the claim for damage. ( 9 ) FINALLY, Mr. Tyagi has contended that sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that : - "in addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen percentum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. "this provision of the Land Acquisition Act is sufficiently ruled out in the provisions of the Act under which the acquisition has been made and which was applicable to Delhi at th3 relevant time. In the Schedule under section 58 of the Act. There are further modifications and the following words are added after sub-section (20) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. "provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any land acquired under the united Provinces Town Improvement Act, 1919 (as extended to the province of Delhi) except: (a) land acquired under sub-section (4) of section 29 of that Act, and (b) buildings in the actual occupation of owner or occupied free of rent by a relative of the owner, and land appurtenant thereto and (e) gardens not let to tenants but used by the owners as a place of respect. "mr. Tyagi relies on some other amendments but from their perusal it is impossible to reach the conclusion which the learned counsel contends for. This point had not been raised before the collector or the Tribunal and the solatium had never been granted in any other case of compensation under the Act and particularly under the present scheme. This position has been very fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant. Even assuming for a moment that what Mr. This point had not been raised before the collector or the Tribunal and the solatium had never been granted in any other case of compensation under the Act and particularly under the present scheme. This position has been very fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant. Even assuming for a moment that what Mr. Tyagi says is correct, we would not like to depart from the usual rule which has been adopted of withholding the 15 percent solatium which is admissible under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no reason to make an exception for the first time in what Mr. Tyagi says in the last case before this Court is respect of the Delhi-Ajmeri Gate Slum Clearance Scheme under the Provisions of the U. P. Town Improvement Act, 1919, as applicable to Delhi. ( 10 ) IN the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, we would make no order as to costs.