PT KAHADHYALAL BHARGAVA Vs. U P GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Improvement Trust Tribunal of Allahabad dismissing the appellant's reference to the Tribunal for assessment of proper compensation of a piece of land which has been acquired by the Improvement Trust, Allahabad.

(2.) On the 13th August, 1938 a notification was published in the U.P. Gazette under Section 36 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act (Act VIII of 1919). The notification was to the effect that the improvement scheme had been framed with respect to the area which was mentioned in the notification and it also mentioned the place at which the particulars could be seen. As a consequence of this notice, the acquisition of the appellant's piece of land having an area of 616 sq. yards was made and possession was taken over from the appellant. There was no dispute as far as the actual acquisition of the piece of land was concerned. The Land Acquisition Officer then considered what compensation the appellant and a tenant of a small portion of the said land were entitled to get. He came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Re, 1/- pen sq. yard of land and the tenant was separately granted compensation amounting to the sum, of Rs. 120/-. The tenant appears to have been satisfied with the amount of compensation but, on an application made by the appellant, the question of his compensation was referred to the Improvement Trust Tribunal for adjudication. The reference was under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, but, in view of certain provisions, of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, it was sent to the Improvement Trust Tribunal instead of to a civil court. It may be stated here that the Land Acquisition Act applies to the acquisitions made for the Improvement Trust with certain modifications, which have been detailed in the schedule attached to the Town Improvement Act. The claim of the appellant was for the grant of a sum of Rs. 8,000/-as compensation for the land and for the award of Rs. 1,200/- as additional compensation, on account of compulsory acquisition of the land. The tribunal considered the appellant's case but was of the opinion that the appellant was not entitled to any increase in the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and dismissed the reference. The appellant was also ordered to pay the costs of the reference. This is the order against which the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is necessary to mention certain provisions of the Town Improvement Act and of the schedule attached to the Town Improvement Act containing the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act by the U.P. Town Improvement Act. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act lays down certain principles according to which compensation has to be awarded for the acquisition of land. Sub-section (2) of that section requires that, apart from the market value of the land which is to be determined according to the provisions of Section 23, the claimant is to be awarded an additional sum amounting to 15 per cent of the market value, in lieu of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Paragraph No. 10 of the schedule attached to the Town Improvement Act enumerates the amendments made in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 10 has added a proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 23, which is to the effect that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act shall not apply to any land acquired under U.P. Town Improvement Act, except where the land has been anquired under Sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Act or the acquisition is of certain types of build' ings and gardens. Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 10 of the sche-due makes further amendments in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act by adding a number of provisions at the end of Section 23, which lay down further principles for the determination of the market value, where the acquisition is under the Town Improvement Act. I am concerned in the present case with the first of these additions which is as follows :--