GOPAL KRISHNA KHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") the appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Additional District Judge dated 31.1.1983 passed in LAC No.441/71. The appellant is aggrieved essentially by the finding recorded in respect of issue Nos.3, 3A and 3B which pertain to the valuation placed on the building and structure, fittings and fixures, loss of earnings/profits, change of place of business and incidental damages and expenses. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- for building and structure, Rs.87,000/- for fittings and fixtures, Rs.2,16,000/- for loss of earnings or profits, Rs.50,000/- for change of place of business and Rs.20,000/- towards incidential damages and expenses on account of acquisition.

(2.) In so far as building and structure is concerned, the evidence produced by the appellant in a form in the estimate required by PW.2 Shri Om Prakash Goel on the basis of C.P.W.D.Schedule for 1967 has been accepted. The method of valuation has been followed on the basis of replacement cost less depreciation that is permissible on that. In fact the Supreme Court in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 S.C.C.150 in paragraph 17 has clearly indicated that in the "Land and Building Method" on valuation of property, the building value is to be estimated on the basis of prime cost or replacement cost less depreciation. The rate of depreciation is, generally, arrived at by dividing the cost of construction (less the salvage value at the end of the period of utility) by the number of years of utility of the building. Though factors, such as, good maintenance, necessarily influence and bring down the rate of depreciation. However, the latter is a matter of evidence. In the present case, the valuation has been done on the basis of the estimate prepared by Shri Om Prakash Goel, the Architect, on the basis of replacement cost, which was arrived at Rs.1,96,479.35. In addition Rs.5681.09 has been assessed towards value of the boundary walls, total value thereby coming to Rs.2,02,160.44. It has been recorded that the building is 30 to 35 years old and, therefore, 1% depreciation p.a. was allowed, which came to about Rs.64,700/- and thereby the value of structure so arrived was Rs.1,37,450/-. In other words, the exact method of valuation, as prescribed by the Supreme Court, has been followed in this case. No interference with this valuation is called for.

(3.) So far as fittings and fixtures are concerned, the claim made was to the extent of Rs.87,000/-. It may be pertinent to note that although the appellant/claimant did not produce any evidence in this behalf, as recorded in the impunged judgment, 7% allowance has been given for electric fittings, as noted in the valuation report of the Architect itself, which finds place at page 191 of the paper book. That apart, in so far as loss on earnings/profits, change of place of business and incidental damages and expenses are concerned, when the appellant himself was examined as PW.3 in response to the query in examination-in-chief - What loss you have suffered by this acquisitinon? - The appellant answered as under:-