Banarsi Dass vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

N.C. Jain, J. (Oral)

The Chandigarh Administration acquired land measuring 121.01 acres at village Buterla (Chandigarh) for development of Chandigarh by issuance of a notification dated December 28, 1974. The Land Acquisition Collector by a separate award granted compensation for the acquisition of the land. In this appeal, this Court is concerned with the determination of valuation of super structures only. The appellant is one of the several claimants who have challenged the award of the District Judge, Chandigarh, by which he has been granted a compensation of Rs. 44,352/.

The superstructures in the case of the appellants comprise of two shops and four rooms. The District Judge has calculated the rental value at Rs. 480/ per month on the basis that one room was rented out at the rate of Rs. 45/ permonth and, therefore, the rental value of four room would come to Rs. 180/. As regards shops, one shop was rented out in favour of Mahabir Singh (PW 5) at the rate of Rs. 150/. The other shop is in possession of the appellantclaimant and, therefore, the District Judge fixed the rental value of the shop in possession of appellant also at the rate of Rs. 150/. In this manner, Rs. 480/ were determined as the rental value per month. The annual rental value after multiplying 480 by 12 comes to Rs. 5,760/. Thereafter, the District Judge has applied deduction of 30 per cent on account of repairs and collection charges. The annual rental value, according to the district Judge, in this manner came to Rs. 4032/. A multiplier of 11 years was applied bringing out the compensation at Rs. 44,352/.

Mr. A.S. Chahal, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that as regard the shop in possession of the appellant, the monthly income should have been taken into consideration. The arguments is untenable. Once the Court is taking into consideration the annual rental value and applying a suitable multiplier, the loss of income cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been brought on the record of the case as to what was the monthly income of the appellant.

It has next been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned District Judge should not have applied a deduction of 30 per cent on account of repairs and collection charges. It has further been argued that the District Judge should have applied a multiplier of 20 years once loss was being ascertained on the ground of annual rental value. There is considerable force in both these submissions. "There is no evidence on the record of the case as to what were the repairs being carried out in the premises and as to what were the collection charges. No question has been asked from the attorney who stepped into the witness boxes in this respect. It appears that in the estimate Ex. PA. 30 percent deductions were shown and the same have been followed by the District Judge as this much deduction is allowable by the Incometax authorities. In my view, 10 per cent deduction in the circumstances of the case should have been applied. Consequently, I determine the annual rental value at Rs. 5,184/ after applying 10 percent deductions to the annual rental value on account of repairs and collections charges. The learned counsel is right in contending that a multiplier of 20 years would be a suitable multiplier in view of the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal v. Ganesh Chandra Mitra and others, AIR 1972 Calcutta 333. After applying multiplier of 20 years, the compensation payable stands determined at Rs. 1,03,680/.

In the light of the observations made above, the appeal of the appellant is allowed with costs. The appellant is allowed two months time to make up the deficiency in Court fee. The appellant is allowed statutory benefits of sections 23(1A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.