Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 364 (PNJ)

Gurdev Singh v. Union of India

2004-03-24

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2004
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which compensation to the tune of Rs. 64,643/- for the tubewell installed at the acquired land has been granted. 2. The land belonging to the appellants situated in the revenue estate of village Bhucho Kalan, Tehsil and District Bathinda, was acquired. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) was issued on 10.5.1979 and under Section 6 was issued on 4.10.1979. The tubewell installed in the said land as well as the residential house belonging to the appellants were also acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short the Collector) awarded compensation of Rs. 61,038/- for the tubewell. However, no compensation was awarded for the house acquired. Dissatisfied with the award the claimants filed application under Section 18 of the Act. The claimants claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- plus statutory solatium as compensation for the tubewell. They examined A.W.1 Shri H.S. Virdee, A.W.2 Jaib Singh and A.W.3 Baldev Singh, while the Union of India examined R.W.1 Shri K.S. Gondhara, Sub Divisional Engineer. After examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, made an enhancement at the rate of 10 per cent of the difference between the valuations of the tubewell made by Shri H.S. Virdee (A.W.1) and Shri K.S. Gondhara (R.W.1), expert witnesses examined by the respective parties. However, no compensation for the house acquired was awarded. In this way an enhancement to the tune of Rs. 3605/- was made in the compensation awarded by the Collector. To challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, the claimants have filed the present appeal. As the claimants have not been able to file the full Court-fee, they confined their claim to the enhancement of Rs. 34,000/- in the compensation awarded for the tubewell and they left out their claim with required to the house acquired. 3. It has been contended by Mr. K.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the appellants, that the valuation report submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee is a detailed report whereas the report for assessing the value of the tubewell submitted by Shri K.S. Gondhara (R.W.1) is not a detailed report and is based on plinth area rate. 3. It has been contended by Mr. K.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the appellants, that the valuation report submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee is a detailed report whereas the report for assessing the value of the tubewell submitted by Shri K.S. Gondhara (R.W.1) is not a detailed report and is based on plinth area rate. According to him, no reliance can be placed on the report submitted by Shri K.S. Gondhara as the estimates submitted by him are rough and based on surmises and conjectures. The counsel contends that the findings given by the Additional District Judge are self-contradictory. On the one hand it has been observed by him that the report given by Shri H.S. Virdee, who is a retired Sub Divisional Engineer from the P.W.D. Department, is a detailed one, but merely because his salary was withheld by the Government, the same has not been accepted by the Additional District Judge. To juxtapose the same, is the report submitted by Shri K.S. Gondhara (R.W.1), which is admittedly, a vague and rough estimate of the value of the tubewell. In spite of yawning gap in the estimates submitted by the two experts, the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, made minor enhancement in the compensation by making the rough estimates submitted by Shri K.S. Gondhara (R.W.1) as the basis. Mr. K.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported as Union of India v. Bachan Singh, 1989 PLJ 708, wherein the learned Single Judge has placed full reliance on the estimates submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee (A.W.1). 4. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently been opposed by Ms. Ranjana Shahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. According to her, the claimants had never filed any objections to the award given by the Collector and also that the report submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee (A.W.1) cannot blindly be followed as the Additional District Judge had found that his salary was withheld by the Government and the estimates given by Shri Virdee were held to be exaggerated. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence adduced on record. 6. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence adduced on record. 6. Admittedly, the report submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee is a detailed estimate of the value of the tubewell acquired by the Government, whereas the value assessed by Shri K.S. Gondhara (R.W.1) is a rough estimate. It is admitted by Shri K.S. Gondhara (R.W.1) that vertical excavation is possible upto 5 metres depth and he had not given any cost for vertical excavation. It is also the admitted position that the carriage rates on the Kacha path are more as compared to the rates on the pucca path. He even admitted that plinth area rate, which had been made basis by him for assessing the value of the tubewell and the structures thereon, is a rough estimate. In such a situation, there is no escape from coming to the conclusion that the assessment of the value of the tubewell and the structures thereon as made by Shri H.S. Virdee (A.W.1) is the correct assessment for determining the value thereof. The assessment reports submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee have been accepted by this Court in a number of cases. Moreover, no compensation has been given to the claimants for the house acquired by the Government. In the case reported as Union of India v. Bachan Singh (supra) this Court has accepted the estimates submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee in toto, wherein it has been held that the payment of compensation to a person whose property has compulsorily been acquired under the Act does not depend upon the fact as to how the acquiring authorities are going to utilise the acquired property, but it depends upon the fact as to what the person concerned has been deprived of. In the present case the claimants have been deprived of their tubewell and the structures constructed thereon as well as their residential house. In the present appeal, the claimants have even forgone claim for the house acquired as they have failed to pay the full Court-fee and, accordingly, they have confined their claim to the enhancement of Rs. 34,000/- as compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Collector. 7. In the present appeal, the claimants have even forgone claim for the house acquired as they have failed to pay the full Court-fee and, accordingly, they have confined their claim to the enhancement of Rs. 34,000/- as compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Collector. 7. Keeping in view the afore-mentioned facts, I allow the appeal and modify the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, to the extent that the claimants would be entitled to the enhancement to the tune of Rs. 34,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Collector. They would also be allowed all the statutory benefits under the Act, as ordered by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Appeal allowed.