Union of India vs Veer Kaur and others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This regular first appeal alongwith other 22 connected appeals arises from a common judgment and award dated 21.7.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritrsar.

The land and superstructure belonging to the various claimants was acquired by Punjab Government for the benefit and utilization of Union of India, Ministry of Defence. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on 26.4.1978. In furtherance thereto, notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 17.3.1981. The learned Collector by a common award being Award No. 1 granted compensation to the different claimants at different rates depending upon the value of the property acquired.

Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the claimants filed references u/s 18 of the Act and amongst others, 7 references were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment. Vide judgment dated 21.7.1995, the learned Judge, while maintaining the compensation given by the learned Collector, granted an additional enhancement of compensation by 25%, as the claimants were required to vacate their houses which have been acquired and to change their residence, as an inevitable consequence thereof.

Mainly the grievance of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that there was no materia] before the learned Additional District Judge to grant additional benefit of 25% and the same is beyond the purview and scope of provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The contention raised on behalf of the Union of India is misconceived. Section 23(1) Fifthly reads as under:

23(1) Fifthly - If, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and

The language of the above section clearly indicates the legislative intent to grant compensation to the claimants where they are required/compelled to change their residence or place of business as a result of acquisition and the reasonable expenses incidental thereto. This is certainly one of the factors which the court is required to take into consideration while determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. The claimants had produced private valuers, who were examined in the Court with their reports. Different reports placed before the learned trial Court had indicated grant of two to four times more of the compensation amount awarded to the claimants on this score. The learned Judge declined to fully rely upon these reports, as they were produced at the instance of the claimants. The element of exaggeration in such reports would be a normal consequence and thus I find no error in the view taken by the learned trial Court in not fully relying upon these reports but the fact which, too, established on the record is that the said houses were acquired and as a result of the acquisition, the claimants were compelled to leave and change their places of residence to other places. These undisputed facts certainly attract the applicability of clause "fifthly" of Section 23 of the Act. This was one of the essential ingredients to be considered by the Collector which he has not considered while awarding the compensation. Enhancement by 25% appears to be otherwise reasonable and equitable. The Court has to apply some mind of conjecture in awarding compensation to the claimants, especially in the case of present kind.

Resultantly, I see no force in the submission raised on behalf of the Union of India. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Union of India is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.