JASPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order, made on 15/11/1985 by the Punjab and Haryana High court dismissing in limine LPA No. 1356 by confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9/11/1979 in RFA No. 779 of 1975.

(2.) Notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894 (for short "the Act") was published on 11/7/1977 acquiring a large tract of land including the land in question for extension of the cantonment in amritsar. The award under Section 11 was made and on reference under Section 18 of the Act, came to be filed in the civil court on 15/6/1983 which determined the compensation for loss of profits to the appellant's poultry at Rs. 6,54,637. 00. Since the Assistant Director of Poultry Farm had notified to the Land Acquisition Officer that the rate of return per bird was at Rs. 1.38 per month and there were 2500 birds in the poultry farm, the Additional District Judge applying 15 years' multiplier, came to determine the above amount. In writ petition, the learned Single Judge of the High court reversed the said finding and held that the appellant at best would be entitled to Rs. 31,050. 00 for loss of business for a reasonable period of 5 and 6 months. That was confirmed by the Division Bench. Thus this appeal by special leave. This appeal, on behalf of the respondent, seems to have been filed due to which we need not go into merits to the extent upheld by the High court.

(3.) Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that under clause fourthly of Ss. (1 of Section 23 of the Act, if the damage sustained by the appellant at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition is such as is injuriously affecting his other property, moveable or immovable, in any other manner or his earnings, the appellant is entitled to the compensation. Equally, compensation is claimed under clause fifthly, since as a result of the acquisition, he was made to travel 5 kms from the border of the State to Pakistan and could secure the land in an insecure place as a result of the search arid had to shift his business to other place. Taking all these factors into consideration, the amount awarded in the award by the civil court cannot be said to be unjustifiable or arbitrary warranting interference by the High court. We find no force in the contention.