Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1131 (PNJ)

Union of India v. Jagga Singh

2003-08-13

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
ORDER Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The Union of India has filed the instant Regular First Appeal against the award dated 15.4.1985 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which the compensation payable to the respondent was enhanced at Rs. 3427.97. The respondent was also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% as also 12% per annum on the total amount of compensation assessed from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the property, whichever is earlier. 2. Vide notification dated 1.5.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Union of India- appellant acquired a huge chunk of land along with the houses for setting up a Cantonment at Bathinda. In this case, the dispute is about the assessment of the market value of the constructed property of the respondent. The Land Acquisition Collector vide this award dated 27.5.1982 assessed the market value of the acquired property at the rate of Rs. 50,770/- on the basis of the report of Bishan Singh (Ex.R-1). 3. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid valuation of his property, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide his award dated 15.4.1985 assessed the market value of acquired property of the respondent at Rs. 54,197.97 and thus enhanced the market value of the property to Rs. 3427.97 over and above what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The learned Additional District Judge assessed the aforesaid market value of the property of the respondent on the basis of the valuation report Ex.A-2 submitted by Shri H.S. Virdi, retired Sub Divisional Engineer of P.W.D B&R Department. In the said report, market value of the acquired property was assessed as Rs. 60,197.60. But the learned Additional District Judge assessed the total market value of the property of the respondent to Rs. 54,197.97. In the said report, market value of the acquired property was assessed as Rs. 60,197.60. But the learned Additional District Judge assessed the total market value of the property of the respondent to Rs. 54,197.97. The learned Additional District Judge also awarded 30% solatium on the aforesaid enhanced amount under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% as also 12% per annum on the total amount of compensation assessed from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the property, whichever is earlier. 4. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the Union of India- appellant has filed this Regular First Appeal in this Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Additional District Judge should not have relied upon the report of Shri H.S. Virdi, retired Sub Divisional engineer of P.W.D. B&R Department. He further contended that the learned Additional District Judge has not taken into consideration the report of Bishan Singh (Ex. R-1) while awarding compensation to the respondent and thus erroneously enhanced the compensation payable to the respondent at Rs. 3427.97. 5. The learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that this case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Bachan Singh, 1989(2) Revenue Law Reporter 140, which pertains to the same acquisition, in which it was held that the land owners-claimants would be entitled to be paid the compensation of the properties on the basis of the market value assessed by Shri H.S. Virdi in his report, and from the said assessed market value, no deduction was to be made. The learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that this appeal may also be disposed of in view of the aforesaid judgment and the market value of the property of the respondent may be determined on the basis of the assessment report made by Shri H.S. Virdi without deduction. 6. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Union of India is dismissed and the respondent-claimant is held entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 3427.97 for the acquired property over and above what has been awarded to them by the Court below. 6. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Union of India is dismissed and the respondent-claimant is held entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 3427.97 for the acquired property over and above what has been awarded to them by the Court below. On this enhanced amount, the respondent shall be entitled to 30% solatium under Section 23(2), 12% per annum additional amount on the enhanced market value of the acquired land under Section 23(1-A) of the Act for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of land, whichever is earlier and interest at the rate of 9% for one year and 15% for subsequent years till its payment under Section 28 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.