STATE OF BIHAR Vs. KUNDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of proceedings under the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (NO. 1 of 1894) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The respondents owned an area of 0.12 acre of land in village Bermo No. 18 in the district of Hazaribagh. This land was required for the construction of Aerial Rope-way for Bokaro Thermal Power Plant, and so, in order to acquire the said land, a declaration under S. 4 of the Act was made on the 9th August, 1952. The property of the respondents which stands on this plot consists of two buildings one is the main structure and the other is made up of out-houses together with an open space of land in front of these structures. The notification showed that the Government thought it necessary to acquire a space of 50 ft. in width for the electric wire to run over and this included a portion of the open space as also the out-houses of the respondents. Under the proceedings taken under the relevant provisions of the Act, the land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation to be paid to the respondents at Rs. 4,451/5/6; according to him, the said amount represented a fair and reasonable compensation for the land together with the out-houses under acquisition.

(2.) The respondents were not satisfied with this award, and so, they applied for reference under S. 18 of the Act. One of the grounds taken by the respondents in para 1 (d) of their portion for reference was that the other lands and buildings contiguous to the land and building acquired which belonged to them had not been acquired, and in consequence, they had to suffer a huge loss; the rope-line passes close to the rest of the property, and so, it could not be used for fear of its being dangerous for human habitation. On this basis, the respondents alleged that they were entitled to recover as compensation amount Rs. 21,765/8/- which they had spent on the construction of the principal building. Besides, they urged that the monthly rent of Rs. 160/- which they were receiving from the tenants in respect of the said principal building would also be lost and they were entitled to adequate compensation on that account. In other words, one of the grounds raised by the respondents in their petition was referable to S. 23 (3) of the Act.

(3.) The Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh then proceeded to make the reference as claimed by the respondents. In his letter of reference, he stated that the respondents were claiming additional compensation on the ground that the other lands and buildings contiguous to the land and building acquired which they owned had not been acquired and thereby they had to suffer a huge loss.