KARAM CHAND PURAN CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shamshad Manjil, two storeyed building, on the Plot measuring 5556 Sq. Yds., was acquired by Delhi Administration by Section 4 aotifioation on 24.8.1962. The property is owned by Karam Chand, Puran Chand, Ram Krishan and Smt. Kirpal Kaur each having 1/4th share in the property. They have filed the present appeals against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 11th March, 1968. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award dated 4th December, 1963 had fixed the market value of the property (building as well as land) at Rs. 2,11,040.00 . The Additional District Judge raised compensation amount to Rs. 3,16,034.00 . The Claimants/appellants have claimed compensation for land of Rs. 16,94,580.00 , at the rate of Rs. 350.00 per sq. yd. They have also claimed Rs. 4,30,000.00 as compensation for the building. Appeal No. 406/68 is filed jointly by Karam Chand Puran Chand. Appeal No. 284/68 is filed by Ram Krishan and Appeal No. 19/1969 is filed by Smt. Kirpal Kaur.

(2.) The learned Collector fixed the market value on the basis of Capitalising-of rent which the; property was fetching. Naturally, therefore, there is no separate assessment of compensation of building and the land. The learned Additional District Judge has rejected the said method of capitalising the income/rent and has preferred to assess the market value on the basis of the sale instances, valuer's report, and the Court decisions. He has relied upon AIR 1949 East Punjab 160; AIR 1959 Mysore P. 123; and AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesfh 504. In support of his conclusions that capitalising income is not avery satisfactory method and the same could not be resorted to unless there is no other method and evidence available. We are in respectful agreement with the decisions of the said High Courts and we endorse the conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge as the correct conclusion. There is yet another reason why the method of capitalising income is not a proper method for fixing market value in the present case. The property was originally an evacuee property with the Rehabilitation Ministry. The Rehabilitation Ministry normally gives the property at a very norminal rent to tenants, the only object to keep the property in use till its final disposal under the relevant enactments. The income/rent in such cases does not correctly represent the market income of the property. The learned counsel for. the respondent has fairly consented that the method of capitalising income is not the proper method for the fixing of the market value of the present property.

(3.) There are four buildings on this huge plot of 5556 Sq, yds. on the main Roshanara Road. Roshanara Road is a 100 ft. road, and is in the heart of the commercial area of old Delhi. The main building was two storeyed pucca building fitted with flush system, electricity and having marble chips flooring and glazed titles. There is a double storeyed annexe which is a pucca building. There are out-houses and servants quarters attached to the main building. Some shops were constructed by the Rehabilitation Department in the front portion of the building. In the main building Industrial Training Institute was running and its workshop was located in the annexe. Other portions were let out to different tenants who were continuing since the time the building was with the Rehabilitation Department. There were a number of big trees also on the plot. Karam Chand one of the appellants was in the occupation of two flats at the time of acquisition of the building. , According to the evidence of Puran Chand, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, appellants had the plan of constructing flats-cum-shops on the front portion and residential buildings and godowns at the back portion. He has further stated in his evidence that there are cinema houses and other commercial buildings on both sides of the road. Offices of large number of transport companies are also on the same road. The building is very near to Sabzimandi and the Railway Station.