RAO NARAIN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil appeal by special leave is preferred against the common judgment and separate decree dated 9-5-1980 of the Rajasthan High Court, dismissing Civil First Appeal No. 54 of 1971* in which the appellant, had sought enhanced compensation for his acquired property and partly allowing Civil First Appeal No. 56 of 1971 of the Union of India in which it had sought reduction in the market value of the same acquired property.

(2.) The appellant, since deceased (represented by his Legal Representatives), was the owner in possession of a property known as 'Masuda House' at Ajmer, comprised of a thirty year old building with a large extent of land of about 70 Bighas, 14 Biswas, appurtenant thereto. On 24th April, 1963, the Union of India, in exercise of its powers under S. 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 (D.I. Act), requisitioned the said building and land for stationing the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) and took its possession. Then, on 5th May, 1967 the Collector of Ajmer, having served a notice on the appellant under S. 36 of the D.I. Act, acquired the said building and land. As the D.I. Act ceased to have its force with effect from 10th July, 1968, the Collector of Ajmer took recourse to S. 8(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - the Requisitioning and Acquisition Act and offered to the appellant on 10th September, 1968 a sum of Rs. 5,32,594 as total compensation for the acquired building and land. The appellant, rejected that offer of compensation as inadequate. This situation led to the appointment of Shri Updesh Narain Mathur, the Joint Legal Remembrancer for the State of Rajasthan, as Arbitrator under S. 8(1)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition Act, for determining the just amount of compensation payable to the appellant for his acquired building and land. On a notice issued by the Arbitrator to the appellant inviting his claim for compensation, the appellant filed a claim-statement claiming Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation for the acquired building and Rs. 10 per sq. yard as compensation for the acquired land. The Arbitrator, purporting to act on evidence produced by parties in an enquiry held by him for determining the compensation payable to the appellant, made an award on 15th April, 1971. By that award, the market value of the acquired building was fixed at Rs. 2,50,000 while the market value of land was fixed at Rs. 7.50 per sq. yard. Then, the damages for loss of access to the appellant's unacquired land was fixed at Rs. 2,000. Further, the solatium payable on the total market value of the acquired land was fixed at 15 per cent while the interest on the total compensation payable was fixed at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment, The appellant, who felt that. the amount of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator was inadequate, preferred an appeal in the High Court seeking grant of enhanced compensation. The Union of India which, on the contrary, felt that the amount of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator was excessive, preferred an appeal in the High Court seeking reduction in the amount of compensation. The High Court which clubbed both the appeals and heard them, by its common judgment partly allowed the appeal of the Union of India and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. By that judgment the market value of the building was reduced from Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 1,41,100 while the market value of the land was reduced from 7-50 per sq. yard to Rs. 4. per sq. yard. Solatium was given at a uniform rate of 10 per cent on the market value of both the buildings and the land as against the rate of solatium of 15 per cent, which had been given on the market value of the land by the award. Interest at 4 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation was granted directing payment of that rate of interest on the total amount of compensation from the date of acquisition till 2nd November, 1968, the date on which Rs. 4,59,150.84 paise was paid to the appellant and on the balance amount of compensation from 3rd November, 1968 upto the date of its payment to the appellant. That common judgment of the High Court and the decrees made thereon, are appealed against by the appellant in these appeals, whereby grant of enhanced compensation is sought. Due to the death of the appellant during the pendency of this appeal, his Legal Representatives are permitted to prosecute this appeal.

(3.) Shri A. K. Sen, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, contended before us that the market value of the acquired building as well as the market value of the acquired land, determined by the High Court fell far short of the price which each of them would have fetched in the open market if had been sold on the date of their acquisition in the same condition in which they were at the time of requisition and hence were not the respective prices liable to be paid for them under S. 8(3) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition Act. Elaborating the contention, he argued that the High Court in determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 4 per sq. yard had not taken into consideration the relevant factors, such as, (i) the building potentiality of the acquired land, (ii) the prices fetched under sale deeds of similar lands in the vicinity of the acquired land and (iii) trend in price-rise of lands, which would have warranted granting of a higher market value for it. He further contended that the High Court ought not have reduced the market value of the acquired building to an amount falling short of the amount fixed for it by the Arbitrator on the basis of the estimate of its value prepared by Shri G. L. Sharma, a private Engineer and his own spot inspection report. As regards the solatium awarded by the High Court at 10 per cent on the market value of the acquired land and building, his contention was that such solatium should have been awarded at the rate of 15 per cent as was permissible under the Central Land Acquisition Act and not at the rate of 1.0 per cent as was permissible under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. The learned counsel for the Union of India, who refuted the said contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant, sought to sustain the judgment of the High Court.