HIRA LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 12-5-1981 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Kanpur in Reference No. 422 of 1963 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The court below has allowed additional compensation of Rs. 36,729/- with 6% interest in addition to the compensation of Rs. 6063/ granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that the court below has committed an error in refusing to pay the market value for the vacant land separately which is claimed at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. yard. The vacant land and built-up land has been treated as one unit, which is not correct according to law. It is also submitted that the court below has not considered the expert's report about the valuation of the property. The court below is said to have ignored from consideration the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1953. It has committed an error in calculating the rental value of the building. The court below is said to have not considered the evidence on record. Potentiality and commercial value of the building has not been taken into consideration. Damages under Section 48A of the Act could not be refused. The enhanced amount of compensation is too low.

(3.) It appears that premises No. RT 16 (old) and 133/241 (new) situate at Rattupurwa (Juhi Khurd) in Kanpur having an area of 2 Bighas 13 Biswas was acquired through the award dated 19-1-1962 under the scheme known as the Southern City Extension Scheme No. II duly framed by the Town improvement Trust Kanpur and sanctioned by the local Government. This scheme was notified under Section 36(1) of the Town Improvement Act of 1919 on 17, 24 and 31-1-1920 and notification under Section 42(1) of the said Act was issued on 7-1-1921. The land forms part of plot No. 234. The owners of the building and occupier of the' open land are mentioned in the judgment of the court below. However, there was some dispute about the area of the land, which was finally settled by the court below by deciding issue No. 1. The total acquired land was held to be 1980 sq. yards. The Appellants had claimed Rs. 10/- per sq. yard against Annas per sq. yard granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Appellants seem to have filed a supplementary claim and stated that the cost of the similar land in the Nagar Mahapalika was between Rs. 70/- to Rs. 110/- per sq. yard. It was also claimed that the property in the shape of house (Malba) was not valued properly and assessment of the Malba with land underneath the Malba hat not been made in accordance with law. The value assessed for the building, which had dilapidated and compensation of Rs. 6063/- awarded was said to be meagre. The reference was contested by the State. The court below reused to grant damages to the Appellants under Section 48A of the Land Acquisition Act. It, however, granted compensation in addition to the amount, which was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, to the tune of Rs. 36,729/- as compensation for the dilapidated building and the land under and appurtenant thereto. In this way the total compensation which was payable to the Appellants is 42,780/. For determining compensation of the building and the land the court below has relied on an authority of this Court Sheo Nath Misra v. U.P. Government,1961 ALJ 340. It was held that the only proper method for determination of the market value of the property is the capitalization of the net annual profits and the fair market value of the property acquired should not exceed twenty times the annual net profit. In this case the land was acquired under Section 19(1) of the Defence of India Act of 1939. In the said Act Section 23(1) was made applicable for determining the compensation and Section 23(2) was excluded to the acquisition proceedings under the Defence of India Act.