COLLECTOR v. AMIN CHAND — 1967 DIGILAW 119 (DEL)

S. K. KAPUR ( 1 ) THE subject-matter of acquisition in this case is a house situate in Sundernagar within the Municipal limits. Before anything is said on the rival contentions, I would like to point out that Sundernagar is one of the places which has assumed considerable importance in view of Sutlej Beas Link Project. ( 2 ) THE dispute in this case relates only to the superstructure and not to the land on which it is built. The house was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in pursuance of notification dated May 13, 1958, under section 4 of the said Act and the award was made by the Collector on January 16, 1962. The Collector fixed compensation at Rs. 1,160 which was enhanced by the learned District Judge to Rs. 6,848. It appears that the house was originally owned by Bijai Ram and Mohan. The Collector awarded compensation to Amin Chand son of Brjai Ram, Rukmani daughter of Mohan. Mitter Dev and Saradhu, son and widow of Mohan respectively. The Collector appor tioned compensation equally amongst four claimants. Out of the said four claimants, Amin Chand, Mitter Dev and Saradhu applied under section 18 of the said Act to the District Judge for enhancement of compensation. Rukmani was impleaded as a respondent and it was alleged in the application for reference that she had relinquished her interest in favour of the other three claimants. On an objection by the Collector that in the absence of a reference application by Rukmani no enhancement could be allowed with respect to her one fourth interest in the acquired property, the learned District Judge decided that Rukmani having relinquished her interest the three applicants could ask for revision of compensation with respect to the entire property. The learned District Judge, therefore apportioned the total compensation between the three applicants namely Amin Chand, Mitter Dev and Saradhu. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the award of the learned District Judge, the Collector has filed an appeal in this Court and the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the jurisdiction of the District Judge to allow any increase in the compensation with respect to the one-fourth share of Rukmani. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the award of the learned District Judge, the Collector has filed an appeal in this Court and the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the jurisdiction of the District Judge to allow any increase in the compensation with respect to the one-fourth share of Rukmani. The learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the aforementioned four persons have to be treated as co-owners because each one of them got one-fourth share in the compensation. On behalf of the appellant the main contention is that no relinquishment having been proved the award of the Collector to the extent of Rukmani's share became final. The special jurisdiction enjoyed by District Judge is circumscribed within the four corners of sections 18 to 22 of the said Act. Under section 18 any person interested who has not accepted the award may apply to the Collector in writing for reference of the matter for determination by the Court "whether his objection be to the measurement by the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. "section 20 enjoins the Court to serve notice on the applicant, the persons interested and in certain cases the Collector, "specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection. " The words "the objection" in section 20 has reference to the 'objection' of the applicant under section 18. The jurisdiction of the Court, therefore, arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector's award. It is confined to the consideration of that objection. The Court does not exercise appellate powers over the Collector. The scheme of the Act indicates, which indication has the support of inherent reasonableness that persons who have not applied for a reference even though they are brought before the Court cannot be allowed to ventilate their own grievance against the award. Persons interested even though parties to the award but not satisfied therewith cannot intervene in a reference at some one else's instance and ask for increse of their compensation. Persons not applying for reference are treated as persons who have accepted the award and qua them the award becomes final. Persons interested even though parties to the award but not satisfied therewith cannot intervene in a reference at some one else's instance and ask for increse of their compensation. Persons not applying for reference are treated as persons who have accepted the award and qua them the award becomes final. Section 21 which prescribes the scope of inquiry does not enlarge its amplitude so as to embrace the consideration of the interests of all possible persons including those who would like to have higher compensation. There may be cases where a co-owner having no distinct and specified share or a joint owner may apply on behalf of all so that any enhancement in the compensation by the Court may enure to the benefit of all. But I am not in this case called upon to decide that question because in my opinion where each co-owner has a distinct and specified share in the property he can represent only his own interest and each one of the co-owners must ask for a reference. In this view I am supported by State v Narayani Pillai Kuttiparu Amma, AIR 1959 Kerala 136. It was for the applicants to prove the facts entitling them to apply on behalf of the four owners They did not allege or prove their right to apply as co-owners or joint owners, but based their claim on relinquishment alone. I am, therefore, obliged to answer the point on that footing. ( 4 ) RUKMANI appeared as P. W. 1 and inter alia stated that she had withdrawn and retained with herself the compensation awarded to her by the Collector but she was willing to part with that in favour of the three applicants. She further stated that she had not relinquished her interest in the property of Mohan earlier but was relinquishing it henceforth. That does not show that she had relinquished her interest till at least the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for making application under section 18. Relinquishment in future could be of no avail to the three applicants. It follows that Rukmani accepted the award made in her favour with the result that the District Judge was not competent to enhance compensation with respect to her one- fourth share. On that reasoning alone the award made by the District Judge must stand reduced to the extent of one-fourth of the enhanced amount. It follows that Rukmani accepted the award made in her favour with the result that the District Judge was not competent to enhance compensation with respect to her one- fourth share. On that reasoning alone the award made by the District Judge must stand reduced to the extent of one-fourth of the enhanced amount. ( 5 ) THAT takes me to the merits of the compensation fixed by the District Judge. According to the statement of Amin Chand (P. W. 2), Sadh (P. W. 4) and Shiv Ram (P. W. 5) the year of the construction of the house was 1938. There is no rebuttal on the part of the Collector and I accept that evidence. The main evidence as to the costs of the construction consists of the statement of Shri Basant Singh (P. W 6) an overseer of considerable standing on the one hand ,and the evidence of Shri S. D. Gera Assistant Engineer (R. W. 1 ). Shri Basant Singh produced the site plan, details of measurement and abstract of cost, Exhibits P. W. 6/a P. W. 6/b and P. W. 6/c respectively. Shri Gera also produced similar statements, the abstract of costs filed by him being R. W. I/a. According to Mr. Basant Singh the cost of construction in May 1958 works out to Rs. 8,560. He stated that he depended on the Schedule of costs of Public Works Department but did not clarify the month or the year in which it was prepared. We are informed that the first Schedule of cost was prepared by the Public Works Department in the year 1956 and the same was amended in 1962. Mr. Gera, however, worked the cost at Rs. 4,559 and taking the life of the building as 48 years out of which according to him, 35 years had been spent arrived at the value of Rs. 1,526. According to both the estimates the construction was a kuchha one but stones and wooden frames had been used. The built area in the ground floor and the first floor is 486 sq. feet and 648 sq. ft. respectively i. e. a total of 1134 sq. ft. If one were to accept the estimate of Shri Gera the cost of construction per square foot would work to a little over Rs 4 per sq. ft. The built area in the ground floor and the first floor is 486 sq. feet and 648 sq. ft. respectively i. e. a total of 1134 sq. ft. If one were to accept the estimate of Shri Gera the cost of construction per square foot would work to a little over Rs 4 per sq. ft. It is impossible to expect that that would represent a fair estimate of the cost of construction in the year 1963 when the prices had risen very high. There is the evidence of Shri Kanshi Ram Advocate (P W 3) who was a tenant in the ground Floor of the house. He was paying a rent of Rs. 150 per annum. That would also provide an indication as to the nature of the building and even if one were to calculate the capitalised value of the ground floor on the basis of twenty years rent it would come to Rs 3,000 and it is common case that the fust floor comprises a larger built area. The learned District Judge accepted the estimate of costs filed by Shri Basant Singh. No infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the estimate Ex P W 6/c and I am inclined to accept the same which appears to be more in accord with the cost of construction. The ontention of "the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation of the house should be reduced has, therefore, no merit ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is partially allowed and the award of the District Judge is reduced by Rs. 1,422. The compensation is. therefore, held to be payable as under:- RS. 1,712 Each to Amin Chand, Mitter Dev and Saradhu, Rs. 290 to Rukmani; Each of the owners are entitled to solatium at fifteen per cent on the compensation awarded to them. We are informed that Rukmani has already received her share of compensation as fixed by the Collector The parties will have their proportionate costs. S. K. KAPUR ( 1 ) THE subject-matter of acquisition in this case is a house situate in Sundernagar within the Municipal limits. Before anything is said on the rival contentions, I would like to point out that Sundernagar is one of the places which has assumed considerable importance in view of Sutlej Beas Link Project. S. K. KAPUR ( 1 ) THE subject-matter of acquisition in this case is a house situate in Sundernagar within the Municipal limits. Before anything is said on the rival contentions, I would like to point out that Sundernagar is one of the places which has assumed considerable importance in view of Sutlej Beas Link Project. ( 2 ) THE dispute in this case relates only to the superstructure and not to the land on which it is built. The house was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in pursuance of notification dated May 13, 1958, under section 4 of the said Act and the award was made by the Collector on January 16, 1962. The Collector fixed compensation at Rs. 1,160 which was enhanced by the learned District Judge to Rs. 6,848. It appears that the house was originally owned by Bijai Ram and Mohan. The Collector awarded compensation to Amin Chand son of Brjai Ram, Rukmani daughter of Mohan. Mitter Dev and Saradhu, son and widow of Mohan respectively. The Collector appor tioned compensation equally amongst four claimants. Out of the said four claimants, Amin Chand, Mitter Dev and Saradhu applied under section 18 of the said Act to the District Judge for enhancement of compensation. Rukmani was impleaded as a respondent and it was alleged in the application for reference that she had relinquished her interest in favour of the other three claimants. On an objection by the Collector that in the absence of a reference application by Rukmani no enhancement could be allowed with respect to her one fourth interest in the acquired property, the learned District Judge decided that Rukmani having relinquished her interest the three applicants could ask for revision of compensation with respect to the entire property. The learned District Judge, therefore apportioned the total compensation between the three applicants namely Amin Chand, Mitter Dev and Saradhu. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the award of the learned District Judge, the Collector has filed an appeal in this Court and the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the jurisdiction of the District Judge to allow any increase in the compensation with respect to the one-fourth share of Rukmani. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the award of the learned District Judge, the Collector has filed an appeal in this Court and the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the jurisdiction of the District Judge to allow any increase in the compensation with respect to the one-fourth share of Rukmani. The learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the aforementioned four persons have to be treated as co-owners because each one of them got one-fourth share in the compensation. On behalf of the appellant the main contention is that no relinquishment having been proved the award of the Collector to the extent of Rukmani s share became final. The special jurisdiction enjoyed by District Judge is circumscribed within the four corners of sections 18 to 22 of the said Act. Under section 18 any person interested who has not accepted the award may apply to the Collector in writing for reference of the matter for determination by the Court "whether his objection be to the measurement by the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. "section 20 enjoins the Court to serve notice on the applicant, the persons interested and in certain cases the Collector, "specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection. " The words "the objection" in section 20 has reference to the objection of the applicant under section 18. The jurisdiction of the Court, therefore, arises when a specific objection has been taken to the Collector s award. It is confined to the consideration of that objection. The Court does not exercise appellate powers over the Collector. The scheme of the Act indicates, which indication has the support of inherent reasonableness that persons who have not applied for a reference even though they are brought before the Court cannot be allowed to ventilate their own grievance against the award. Persons interested even though parties to the award but not satisfied therewith cannot intervene in a reference at some one else s instance and ask for increse of their compensation. Persons not applying for reference are treated as persons who have accepted the award and qua them the award becomes final. Persons interested even though parties to the award but not satisfied therewith cannot intervene in a reference at some one else s instance and ask for increse of their compensation. Persons not applying for reference are treated as persons who have accepted the award and qua them the award becomes final. Section 21 which prescribes the scope of inquiry does not enlarge its amplitude so as to embrace the consideration of the interests of all possible persons including those who would like to have higher compensation. There may be cases where a co-owner having no distinct and specified share or a joint owner may apply on behalf of all so that any enhancement in the compensation by the Court may enure to the benefit of all. But I am not in this case called upon to decide that question because in my opinion where each co-owner has a distinct and specified share in the property he can represent only his own interest and each one of the co-owners must ask for a reference. In this view I am supported by State v Narayani Pillai Kuttiparu Amma, AIR 1959 Kerala 136. It was for the applicants to prove the facts entitling them to apply on behalf of the four owners They did not allege or prove their right to apply as co-owners or joint owners, but based their claim on relinquishment alone. I am, therefore, obliged to answer the point on that footing. ( 4 ) RUKMANI appeared as P. W. 1 and inter alia stated that she had withdrawn and retained with herself the compensation awarded to her by the Collector but she was willing to part with that in favour of the three applicants. She further stated that she had not relinquished her interest in the property of Mohan earlier but was relinquishing it henceforth. That does not show that she had relinquished her interest till at least the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for making application under section 18. Relinquishment in future could be of no avail to the three applicants. It follows that Rukmani accepted the award made in her favour with the result that the District Judge was not competent to enhance compensation with respect to her one- fourth share. On that reasoning alone the award made by the District Judge must stand reduced to the extent of one-fourth of the enhanced amount. It follows that Rukmani accepted the award made in her favour with the result that the District Judge was not competent to enhance compensation with respect to her one- fourth share. On that reasoning alone the award made by the District Judge must stand reduced to the extent of one-fourth of the enhanced amount. ( 5 ) THAT takes me to the merits of the compensation fixed by the District Judge. According to the statement of Amin Chand (P. W. 2), Sadh (P. W. 4) and Shiv Ram (P. W. 5) the year of the construction of the house was 1938. There is no rebuttal on the part of the Collector and I accept that evidence. The main evidence as to the costs of the construction consists of the statement of Shri Basant Singh (P. W 6) an overseer of considerable standing on the one hand ,and the evidence of Shri S. D. Gera Assistant Engineer (R. W. 1 ). Shri Basant Singh produced the site plan, details of measurement and abstract of cost, Exhibits P. W. 6/a P. W. 6/b and P. W. 6/c respectively. Shri Gera also produced similar statements, the abstract of costs filed by him being R. W. I/a. According to Mr. Basant Singh the cost of construction in May 1958 works out to Rs. 8,560. He stated that he depended on the Schedule of costs of Public Works Department but did not clarify the month or the year in which it was prepared. We are informed that the first Schedule of cost was prepared by the Public Works Department in the year 1956 and the same was amended in 1962. Mr. Gera, however, worked the cost at Rs. 4,559 and taking the life of the building as 48 years out of which according to him, 35 years had been spent arrived at the value of Rs. 1,526. According to both the estimates the construction was a kuchha one but stones and wooden frames had been used. The built area in the ground floor and the first floor is 486 sq. feet and 648 sq. ft. respectively i. e. a total of 1134 sq. ft. If one were to accept the estimate of Shri Gera the cost of construction per square foot would work to a little over Rs 4 per sq. ft. The built area in the ground floor and the first floor is 486 sq. feet and 648 sq. ft. respectively i. e. a total of 1134 sq. ft. If one were to accept the estimate of Shri Gera the cost of construction per square foot would work to a little over Rs 4 per sq. ft. It is impossible to expect that that would represent a fair estimate of the cost of construction in the year 1963 when the prices had risen very high. There is the evidence of Shri Kanshi Ram Advocate (P W 3) who was a tenant in the ground Floor of the house. He was paying a rent of Rs. 150 per annum. That would also provide an indication as to the nature of the building and even if one were to calculate the capitalised value of the ground floor on the basis of twenty years rent it would come to Rs 3,000 and it is common case that the fust floor comprises a larger built area. The learned District Judge accepted the estimate of costs filed by Shri Basant Singh. No infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the estimate Ex P W 6/c and I am inclined to accept the same which appears to be more in accord with the cost of construction. The ontention of "the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation of the house should be reduced has, therefore, no merit ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is partially allowed and the award of the District Judge is reduced by Rs. 1,422. The compensation is. therefore, held to be payable as under:- RS. 1,712 Each to Amin Chand, Mitter Dev and Saradhu, Rs. 290 to Rukmani; Each of the owners are entitled to solatium at fifteen per cent on the compensation awarded to them. We are informed that Rukmani has already received her share of compensation as fixed by the Collector The parties will have their proportionate costs.