Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 332 (JK)

Union of India v. Mandir Shivji Maharaj

2021-07-14

PUNEET GUPTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal is filed against Award dated 30.11.2015, passed by the learned District Judge, Udhampur under the Jammu and Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act) whereby the respondents have been held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 80,000/- per kanal along with interest @ 7% from the date of issuance of SRO No. 334, dated 08.08.2001 when the government appointed District Judge, Udhampur as ex-officio arbitrator to make an award, till realization of the awarded amount. 2. The Award is challenged on the ground that Village Rount fell outside the jurisdiction of Town Area Committee, Udhampur and therefore, the rates of the land were much below than the one fixed by the arbitrator. The arbitrator failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the appellant. The District Judge also did not give any finding with regard to Issue No. 1 also. It is in the light of the above that the impugned award is sought to beset aside by the appellant. The record of the arbitrator is before the court. 3. The land owners, namely, Mandir Shiv Ji Maharaj and Lekh Raj had land measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas falling in survey Nos. 64, 65, 84, 87 and 89 and 9 kanals 14 marlas falling in survey No. 62 respectively in Village Rount, Tehsil Udhampur. 4. The land of respondent No. 1 is banjar qadim whereas the land belonging to respondent No. 2 is banjar qadim and gair mumkin. The land was acquired by issuance of notice 'J' dated 10.03.1988 by the government and the Deputy Commissioner determined the market rates vide letter of assessment dated 09.12.1989. The appellant herein did not approve the rates determined by the Deputy Commissioner and approved the rates vide letter dated 22.07.1997 for the lands as under: 1. Warhal Changi Rs. 35,000/- 2. Banjar Qadim Rs. 20,000/- 3. Gair Mumkin Rs. 15,000/- 5. The respondents herein did not accept the compensation rate approved by the appellant herein and, therefore, applied for reference for arbitration for enhancement of compensation in respect of the properties in question. The arbitrator framed following issues in the proceedings. 1. Whether the land measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Barian, Tehsil Udhampur comprising of Kh. Nos. 64, 65, 84, 87 and 89 and land measuring 9 kanals 14 marlas comprising of Kh. The arbitrator framed following issues in the proceedings. 1. Whether the land measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Barian, Tehsil Udhampur comprising of Kh. Nos. 64, 65, 84, 87 and 89 and land measuring 9 kanals 14 marlas comprising of Kh. No. 62 situate in village Barian, Tehsil Udhampur owned and possessed by the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 respectively, has been acquired by the respondent? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners have not paid fair and adequate amount of compensation? If so, what is the market rate of the land acquired? OPP 3. Relief. 6. Both the sides produced evidence in the case. 7. The claimants produced Sanmukh Singh, Madan Lal, Rakesh Gupta, Pritam Kumar, Mohan Lal, Narinder Singh in support of their claim. The respondent-Lekh Raj also appeared as a witness during the proceedings. 8. The respondents produced Pardeep Singh S/o Pradhuman Singh and Pardeep Singh Sub-Divisional Officer. 9. The perusal of the Award reveals that the arbitrator enhanced the compensation holding that the award passed in neighboring land or same village has evidentiary value and the market value determined by an award for an earlier acquired land either by the land acquisition officer or the court could form the basis for determining the market value of subsequently acquired land. The arbitrator also relied upon the sale deeds of small land as it held that the same will not render determination of market value improper. The arbitrator after going through the evidence on record held that the land in question is situated in Village Rount which is admittedly more near the centre of Udhampur city than Omara Village wherein the compensation has been assessed at Rs.1 lac per kanal and is about half kilometer from the National Highway. The arbitrator after taking into various aspects of the matter enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 80,000/- per kanal. The only ground taken in the appeal by the appellant is that the Village Rount was outside the jurisdiction of Town Area Committee, Udhampur in the year 1988 and, therefore, the rate fixed by the arbitrator is on a higher side. 10. The perusal of the Award passed by the arbitrator reveals that the arbitrator has passed the award taking into consideration all aspects of the matter on the basis of evidence that has come on record. 10. The perusal of the Award passed by the arbitrator reveals that the arbitrator has passed the award taking into consideration all aspects of the matter on the basis of evidence that has come on record. The arbitrator has thrashed the evidence of both the sides before concluding that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation. The Village Rount fell outside the jurisdiction of Town Area Committee, Udhampurand, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to the compensation awarded by the arbitrator does not hold ground as the arbitrator has determined the compensation even keeping in view the fact that the land of the respondents herein is more near the centre of Udhampur City than Omara village where the compensation was assessed at Rs. 1 lac per kanal and is about half kilometer from the National Highway. The land of the claimants fell within or outside the jurisdiction of the Town Area Committee could not be the only determining factorwhile assessing the compensation. The Sale Deeds brought on record by the claimants of the year 1988 show the lands having been sold at the higher rate than the one assessed by the appellant. The statements of Lekh Raj, Sanmukh Singh, Madan Lal and Pritam Kumar reveal about the earlier award passed with regard to the land near Village Rount Barian and the land sold near the same for much higher amount than the one assessed by the appellant herein. The learned counsel for the appellant though tried to convince the court on the basis of the record of the arbitrator that the evidence produced by the claimants did not require enhancement of compensation yet the court is of the view that the arbitrator while passing the award has not erred in thrashing the statements of the witnesses produced by both the sides. The award passed by the arbitrator cannot be set aside on the ground mentioned in the appeal. 11. The award passed by the arbitrator cannot be set aside on the ground mentioned in the appeal. 11. The case of the respondents herein gets fortified by the judgment reported in Union of India v. Ghansham & Ors., 2008 (1) JKJ 261 [HC],wherein this Court upheld the compensation determined by the District Judge, Udhampur regarding the land which was situate in Village Omara and is near to the Village Rount where the land of the claimants is situate and the award of the arbitrator was also with regard to the lands requisitioned by the Union of India in the year1988. The arbitrator had awarded compensation @ Rs. 1.20 lacs per kanal. 12. In CIMA No. 198/2004 titled 'Union of India v. Moti Singh & Ors.' decided on 04.12.2008, this Court awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac per kanal for the land situate in village Omara which too were requisitioned by the appellants in the year 1988. 13. As far as Issue no. 1 framed in the case is concerned, the arbitrator did not give any finding in respect of the same on the ground that the same is not the subject matter of the reference made in the present case. However, there appears to be no dispute with regard to the ownership of the respondents-claimants with regard to the property in question regarding which compensation has been determined. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the Award passed by the arbitrator learned District Judge, Udhampur is not required to be interfered with as the assessment of compensation has been validly made by the arbitrator after taking into consideration the facts of the case and the evidence produced by the parties. 15. The appeal is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The claimants-respondents are entitled to compensation as assessed in the impugned award along with interest as mentioned in the award. 16. The record of the arbitrator be sent back.