UNION OF INDIA Vs. G.C. SANGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (No. XXX of 1952) (for short 'the Central Act') against award of compensation, mesne profits and interest awarded vide award dated 19.9.94 made under Section 8 of the Act by learned Arbitrator Mr. Justice G.C. Jain (Retd.) in the matter of arbitration between Shri G.C. Sanghi and others and Union of India.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are thus : Respondents own a building Municipal No. 105 (old No. 13) situate in Napier Town, Jabalpur of which carpet area is 4274 suqare feet and plot area is 53970 sq. ft. The said building was requisitioned on 30th January, 1950 by the Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur under Section 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIII of 1948) read with Section 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Accommodation (Requisition) (Amendment) Act, 1949 (Act No. XXXIX of 1949) (for short the State Act) for the purpose of locating the office of the Delhi Special Police Establishment at Jabalpur. The Provincial Government offered Rs. 225/ - per month as compensation which was not agreed by the respondents/owner. Consequently, as provided under Section 4(1)(ii) of the State Act the Provincial Government appointed as arbitrator the District Judge, Jabalpur to fix the fair amount of compensation. The District Judge awarded fair amount of compensation at Rs. 250/ - per month under Section 4(1)(iv) of the State Act, vide award dated 18.11.50, which then was enhanced to Rs. 300/ - per month vide order dated 2.1.1953. Out of the total area an open piece of land measuring 19903 sq. ft. was released from requisition on 17.6.1977. Thus, the open area measuring about 29763 sq. ft. of the accommodation so requisitioned consisted of front lawn, back lawn, lawn underneath, front and back verandah with open court -yard. The Central Act came into force with effect from 15.3.1987 but the possession of the property was delivered on 17.8.1988. The Central Government fixed the amount of compensation of Rs. 1875/ - per month (Rs. 1500+25%) per month from 73.1985.

(3.) THE respondents filed their claim before the learned Arbitrator seeking an award for Rs. 6,77,970/ - with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date amount became due till payment detailised at page 6 of the award. Appellant resisted the claim on various grounds and contended that the monthly compensation determined by the competent officer under the relevant statute is proper and reopening of the same is totally unwarranted, unjustified and unconscionable. Learned Arbitrator framed eight issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. After negativing the contention that the provisions of Central Act were not applicable to the building in question as the property was requisitioned under the State Act and the award dated November 2, 1950 passed by the District Judge and enhanced in appeal by order dated 2.1.53 continued to remain in force till the premises were vacated. The Arbitrator held that the respondents were entitled to the revision of recurring payment from 7.3.1980 to 6.3.1985 and then for the period from 7.3.85 onwards. The respondents were not entitled to get back any excess amount paid as a result of the revision of compensation by the Central Government after the insertion of Section 8(2 -A) of the Central Act. After appreciation of the evidence adduced by the respondents and taking into consideration of the rent of similar property in the vicinity considering the location, types of construction, amenities, the factors for determination of fair rent, and also taking into account the construction of building in question being old determined the compensation under Section 8(1)(e) of the Central Act which appeared to be just to him for the recurring payment for the period from 17.3 .1980 to 6.3 .1985 was fixed at Rs. 4,200/ - per month, total Rs. 2,52,000/ - wherein deduction of Rs. 1,12,500/which respondent; have admittedly received was made, the respondents were held entitled to Rs. 1,39,500/ -. The recurring payment for the constructed and open area commencing from 7.3.1985 ending on 10.3.1987 was fixed Rs. 6,105/ - per month, total Rs. 1,47,334/ - less the amount received Rs. 56,592/ -, the respondents were held entitled to recover Rs. 90,742/ -. As requisitioning period elapsed on 10.3.1987 and premises were vacated on 17.8.1988. therefore, the mesne profits for unlawful possession against the claim of Rs. 15000/ - per month, in the absence of evidence, compensation/mesne profits for this period at the rate of Rs. 6,105/ - per month, total Rs. 1,05,006/ - was awarded, out of which amount of Rs. 40,334/ - at the rate of Rs. 2,345/ - per month received by the respondents was deducted, the respondents were held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 64,672/ -. The claim of Rs. 88,200/ - for the damage of the property was not awarded holding that the building was constructed in the year 1938 with some concrete out -houses, there was no evidence of misuse or causing damage to the property and on the observations in the order dated 11.11.1950 of the District Judge who was appointed as arbitrator to fix the compensation under the State Act, that the garden had been dried up, there was no satisfactory evidence that during the entire period any repairs were made by the owner, that the damage mentioned in the report produced by the respondents was caused by wear and tear, due to user for about 38 years. Learned arbitrator also awarded simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs. 1,39,500/ - from 7.3.1985 till payment, on Rs. 90,742/ - from 10.3.1987 till payment and on Rs. 64,672/ - from 17.6.1988.