COLLECTOR Vs. G BALESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows:

(2.) MR.Tabraiz submits that since the sale price mentioned in Ext. 10 included the price towards the structure standing on the land, the same could not have been relied upon by the learned District Judge for the purpose of determining the market price of the relevant house site. MR.Tabraiz further submits that the learned District Judge, on the basis of the Ext. 10 where the market price of the house site was Rs.422/- per square metre, assessed the market price of the respondents' house site at Rs.600/- per square metre as on the date of the award passed by the Collector i.e. on March 30, 1996. MR.Tabraiz urges that the market price of the acquired house site should have been assessed as on the date of the notification published under section 4(1) of the Act and not as on the date of the award.It is also submitted by MR.Tabraiz that for the purpose of extension of the airport at Port Blair the Administration acquired vast stretches of land by a common notification dated March 13, 1995. The parcels of land acquired under the common notification were classified in the following categories :-

(3.) THE heirs of the land-loser refer to the treatment of Ext. 10 by the learned District Judge and submit that no error was committed in relying on a sale deed of November, 1995 in respect of a nearby house site when the notification in the present case was issued in March, 1995 and the award was rendered in March of the following year. THEy rely on Supreme Court judgments on the principles involved in assessing compensation and suggest that the learned District Judge did not commit any error in enhanciing the quantum on the several heads. In their independent appeal, the heirs of the land-loser question the reduced rate of interest awarded and suggest that the mandate of Section 28 of the Act has been breached thereby.