COLLECTOR, DEHRADUN Vs. SMT. KAILASH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals under Sec. 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against award enhancing compensation to the owners of land arise out of common award in two references. There being one set of evidence and points involved being the same, they are heard together and are disposed of in this common jugment- Cross objections filed by respondents in each appeal,or further enhancement of compensation are also heard and are disposed of in this judgment.

(2.) Land measuring 39 acres 3 decimals belonging to various owners in village Panditwari was under requisition for use of Indian Military Academy at Dehradun. Out of the said areas 17 acres 90 decimals belong to respondent in F.A. No. 174 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Smt. Kaushalya) and 9 acres 89 decimals belonged to respondent in F.A. No. 175 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pawan Kumar). Notice under Sec. 7(1) of the Act was published on 27-1-1971 acquiring land belonging to respondent in both the appeals. Appellant offered Rs. 86849.25 paise to Smt. Kaushalya, which brings the price in open market to about Rs. 4800.00 per acre and Rs. 35,568.15 paise to Pawan Kumar which brings the price to about Rs. 3500.00 per acre in open market. Both and owners did not agree to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha one acre. Since there was no agreement an a arbitrator was appointed to determine the compensation payable to each claimant.

(3.) Both the disputes were heard together by the arbitrator. Since claimants demanded enhancement of compensation, there position is similar to plaintiff in a suit. Thus, a claimant is to satisfy the arbitrator about the prevailing price of land in open market on the day notice under Sect ion 7(1) o f the Act was published. For this purpose, best evidence would be the transaction in respect of the land acquired. That may not be possible always. Therefore, contemporaneous transaction in respect of land having similar advantage can be brought to notice of the arbitrator to determine the prevailing price on the material date, for this purpose, claimant is to bring materials to satisfy the arbitrator that transaction on which he relies' upon are bona fide, I, and under transaction has advantages simile it to the acquired land. When transactions are' not in respect of land having similar advantages, arbitrator can make a reasonable guess work to determine the price in open market taking into consideration the dissimilarities either enhancing or reducing the rate at which the transaction took place.