Union of India (UOI) vs Chaman Lal, etc.

Naresh Chander Jain, J.—This judgment of mine would dispose of Cross Objections No. 39/C-II of 1980 in F.A O. No. 467 of 1980 filed by Chaman Lal respondent No. 1 and Labhu Ram respondent No. 3 (since load and now represented by his legal representatives) as these arise out of the common award of the Senior Subordinate Judge dated March 27, 1980.

The brief facts of the case are that land measuring 578 kanals 14 marlas situated in village Kathanian and land measuring 45 kanals 6 marlas situated in village Gumanpur, District Amritsar, was requisitioned by the District Magistrute, Amritsar, vide requisition dated clause 14, 1966 However, the land along with the super-structures was formally acquired, on March 27, 1970 Possession of the land was handed over to the representative of the Military Estate Officer on June 25, 1966 as the land was requisitioned for the defence of India. Special Land Acquisition Collector offered the following rates to the claimants whose land was acquired :.-

(i) Barani Rs. 1500/-per kanal (ii) Banjar Qadim Rs. 5C0/-per kanal (iii) GairMumkin Rs. 25O/-per kanal

Since no agreement could be arrived at between the Special Collector and the claimants, the matter went in arbitration of Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, who, as has been observed above, vide his award under challenge, held the claimants to be entitled to the grant of compensation at the uniform rates of all kinds of land at Rs. 1500/-per kanal. I, by my judgment in F. A. O. No, 467 of 1980 given on January 25, 19S9 dismissed the appeal of Union of India As regards valuation of the land, it was observed by me while deciding F. A. O. No. 467 of 1980, that the compensation of Rs. 1500/-per kanal was fixed by the arbitrator in accordance with only sale-deed produced by the claimants. In view thereof this Court cannot go into the question of valuatiSn of the land.

Adverting to the cross objections filed by respondents No. I and 3, which were not tagged with F. A.O. No. 467 of 1980, and the other F. A. O. 507 of 1980 filed by some of the claimants, I have been called upon to decide the cross-objections after respondents Nos. 1 and 3 filed a civil miscellaneous application bringing to the notice of this Court that cross-objections were not attached with the aforementioned appeals. This is how these cross-objections have been placed before me for disposal.

Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned '' counsel for cross-objectors, has vehemently argued that the arbitrator has acted without jurisdiction in placing reliance upon the report of the SubDivisional Engineer which Is not exhibited on the record of the case. There is considerable force in the argument. Not only that the report is not exhibited, no witness has been produced in support of the report which has been brought on the judicial file. No opportunity has been given to the claimants to cross-examine the departmental witness and therefore, statement of Harbans Singh, an engineer, produced by the claimants must be relied upon. At this stage it is necessary to observe that the report of Harbans Singh has been discarded by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge on the short ground that it seems to be on the higher side. This observation can just be described to be conjectrual No reasoning has been advanced by the Senior Subordinate Judge in support of the observation made in the award under challenge. Mr. Sarin has readout before me the statement of Harbans Singh who has appeared twice as AW 2 and AW 9. In his cross-examination here is nothing which could descredit his sworn testimony. He has given details as to how he has prepared the estimate regarding the claimants super-structures, which were Karkhtmas.

There is another error in the award of the Senior Subordinate Judge. He has not granted even that much compensation which was offered to the cross-objections after acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector herself assessed much higher compensation than what has been granted by the Senior Subordinate Judge. In any case, once the report of the Sub Divisional Engineer in discardedas having not been exhibited and having not been supported by oral testimony, there is no legal evidence left with this Court, but the report of Harbans Singh, an engineer produced by the cross-objectors. This being the only legal evidence on the record of the case, the same deserves to be accepted. I would, therefore, be accepting the report of Mr. Harbans Singh regarding both the cross- objectors and determine the market value of their super structres as have been given in the report.

In the light of the observations made above Chaman Lal respondent No. 1 is held entitled to the grant of Rs. 39,246/- and Respondent No. 3 to Rs, 44,529/-. The cross-objections are consequently allowed with proportionate costs. They are also held entitled to 50 per cent solatium, on the entire amount. They are also entitled to 9 per cent interest for She first year and 15 per cent interest thereafter in accordance with the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. R.M.S.