LAWS(GAU)-1978-9-5

COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP Vs. MD. ABDUL ALI FAKIR

Decided On September 25, 1978
COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP Appellant
V/S
Md. Abdul Ali Fakir Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Collector of Kamrup under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the award by the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Kamrup dated 17-1-1970 whereby he awarded the following items to the respondent by way of compensation of the land acquired :

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has raised objection as to the last item of Rs. 7,000/- only. His contention is that this item of compensation does not fall under any of the clauses of Section 23 which deals with matters to be considered in determining the compensation. It is urged that the bricks lying on the land cannot be considered as a part of the land nor the price of the bricks can be awarded by way of damages as it is not the respondent's case that he sustained damage at the time of Collector's taking possession of the land by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property.

(3.) THE only evidence in this connection is that of the respondent himself. He has stated as P.W. 1 that about 70,000 bricks were there in the brick field and the price of the bricks was Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per thousand. He further goes on to state that his business in bricks had been closed due to acquisition. It is not his case that he was not allowed to remove the bricks at the time of taking possession of the land by the Collector or that the bricks were damaged at the time of taking possession. His grievance is that his business in bricks had been closed due to acquisition. There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act for awarding damages for closure of any business due to acquisition of land. There is nothing on the record to show that he was prevented from removing the bricks or that the bricks had been damaged at the time of taking possession. Consequently he is not entitled to claim any amount on account of the price of the bricks, which he could have removed or for ought we know, he might have removed. In any case, he is not entitled to get this amount of Rupees 7,000/- on account of the price of the bricks.