COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. KRISHNAMURTHY A R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these cases, at the instance of the Revenue, common question has been referred to this court for its opinion and the question is as follows :

(2.) TAKING up first. T. Cs. Nos. 470 to 475 of 1978, the assessee is HUF representing two branches. The family owned some lands in Koyambedu village in Saidapet taluk, Chengalpattu district. The said lands were acquired by the Government for the West Madras Neighbourhood Scheme sponsored by the State Housing Board. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,53,939. The assessee moved the Sub-court, Chengalpattu, for higher compensation by seeking a reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The sub-court enhanced the compensation by Rs. 26,898. This enhanced compensation was received by the assessee's family partly in July, 1974, and partly in September, 1974. Not satisfied with the enhanced compensation given by the Sub-court, Chengalpattu, the assessee went up in appeal to the High Court. The High Court, by its judgment dated April 8, 1974, awarded further compensation of Rs. 3,93,338 in addition to the compensation awarded by the sub-court. Aggrieved by the award made by the High Court, the State Government has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court questioning the enhancement of compensation by the High Court, and the said appeal is pending disposal before the Supreme Court. Pending the appeal, the Government had deposited the entire enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court and the assessee had been permitted by the Supreme Court to withdraw the extra compensation amount on furnishing a bank guarantee and the assessee drew the amount and had deposited the same in the Indian Bank in fixed deposit on April 15, 1975.

(3.) BEFORE us, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Asst CED . In that case, the lands had been acquired compulsorily long prior to the death of the deceased owner. While determining the principal value of the property passing on the death of the deceased, the question of evaluation of the right to receive the compensation which stood substituted for the lands acquired arose. There also, there was an award by the Land Acquisition Officer in the first instance. Thereafter, at the instance of the assessee, who sought a reference under s. 18 of the Act to the civil court, the compensation was enhanced. The question arose as to whether the authorities could take note of the enhancement of compensation by the civil court. The Supreme Court took the view that the enhancement of compensation by the civil court cannot be taken into account for amending the estimated value of the right to receive the compensation made earlier. But, the reasoning of the Supreme Court is not on the ground that the right to receive additional compensation is an additional right available to the assessee, which had no value, but on a different ground. The reasoning of the Supreme Court is as follows (headnote) :