ISHWAR DASS SATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Award dated7.3.1969 passed by Shri G.R. Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi in LandAcquisition Case No. 317/67 determining the amount of compensation.

(2.) The appellant's property comprised in land measuring 583.32 square yards,on C.T. Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi was acquired for public purpose on the basis ofa notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 14.3.1957. The Collector, LandAcquisition, determined the amount of compensation on the basis of capitalisationof income and an overall award of Rs. 49,000.00 was made. Feeling dissatisfied, areference was sought. Through the impugned award the reference Court held thatthe net rental value of the property had rightly been found by the Collector to be atRs. 2,448.47 p.a. Instead of 20 years purchase on the capitalised value as was takenby the Collector, the reference Court calculated the amount of compensation at 25years and, thus, held the appellants entitled to a sum of Rs. 61,211.75. In this appealfurther enhancement of compensation has been claimed.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a judgment of thisCourt in RFA 398/69 titled as Shri Sat Narain Seth v. Union of India (decided on23.2.1992). Another adjacent property bearing Municipal No. 7661 and 7666situated at G.T. Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi was the subject matter of determinationof compensation which was also acquired under the same notification issued underSection 4 of the Act on 14.3.1957. In the said decision the compensation wasdetermined by capitalisation by multiplying the net rental by 200/7astheGiltEdgesecurity rate was found to be 3.5% at the time of notification issued under Section4 of the Act. Since in this case also the property of the appellant bearing municipalNos. 7645 to 7650 and 7667 to 7673 was adjacent to the property which was thesubject matter in the aforementioned decision in Sat Narain Seth's case (supra)there is no reason to treat this case differently.