Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2812 (RAJ)

Narayan Lal Daga v. University of Udaipur

2019-11-08

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC has been preferred claiming the following relief: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed the compensation of Rs.4000/- as value of the land and Rs.1,28,000/- as the value of the building and the solatium @ 30% on the entire amount and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the whole amount of compensation as stated above with costs throughout. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be allowed." 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the proceedings, for acquiring the property, namely Mohta-Badi situated at Village Parda, for the purposes of the then University of Udaipur, were initiated under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, for which a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued. In lieu of the acquisition, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Udaipur on 29.11.1976. 3. The appellant owned a bungalow in 5 biswas of land and he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,28,000/-, as cost of the bungalow, but the Land Acquisition Officer has allowed the claim only to the extent of Rs.75,820/- alongwith 10% solatium i.e. a total compensation being Rs.83,402/-. Thereafter, reference was made to the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur to raise the solatium from 10% to 30% and enhance the compensation to Rs.1,17,521/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, thus, bringing it nearer to the claim sought. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant did not appear as a witness to prove his case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the house in question was purchased in the year 1962 through auction for Rs.13,000/-, and at the time of acquisition, as per the concerned officer of the PWD, in light of the Building Standard Rate of the Department, after adding cost of the house, its garder and wooden items and deducting the depreciation, an amount of Rs.75,820/- was suffice. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that no specific evidence was produced so as how to calculate its market value, and that, the Building Standard Rate and Standing Orders issued by the PWD, were the only basis of the estimate (Exhibit-A/5), and thus, the same does not call for any interference. 7. After hearing learned counsel for respondent as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the appeal, this Court finds that the house in question was purchased in auction by the appellant for Rs.13,000/- in the year 1962, and therefore, could not have got enhanced for more than Rs.75,820/- at the time of grant of compensation i.e. 1976. The enhancement only in 10 years, as addressed by the learned Authority below is thus, reasonable. 8. This Court also finds that the potential value, which was not granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, has been rightly granted by the learned Civil Court to the tune of Rs.18,955/-, which would further be a just compensation, and would be in terms of the judgment in the matter of Kamla Devi vs. BSF, Jodhpur reported in 1988(1) WLL 730 . 9. This Court further finds that the Solatium has also been increased by learned Civil Court, which was only 10% and has been increased to 30%, which comes to Rs.22,746 (30% of Rs.75820/-), and the same further justifies the impugned order. Interest granted @ 9% per annum, which earlier was not granted, has been granted. The original amount claimed was Rs.1,28,000/-, whereas already an amount of Rs.1,17,521/- with 9% interest has been awarded, and thus, virtually, no amount remains for the enhancement. 10. After careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that the cost of house arrived at by the learned court below is justified and does not call for any interference. If there was any scope for enhancing the compensation, the same has been done in the heads of potential value of the house and solatium value as the learned Civil Court has increased both. 25% compensation for the potential value of the house and 30% of the solatium value, which is the maximum admissible, has already been granted. 11. In view of the above, no case for interference is called for in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.