UJAGAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNION Territory, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, acquired land measuring 81-99 acres in village Kajheri vide its notification No. P-I/68/79 dated 3.10.1979, which had been issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The land was acquired for public purpose viz. for development of Chandigarh. The land had been acquired inclusive of the structures and tubewells existing on the land in question.

(2.) THE compensation had been allowed for the land and also for the structure and the tubewell relating to the respective claims. The present appellant had been awarded Rs. 15543.40 as the compensation for the structures and tubewells etc. The appellant being dissatisfied sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for the purpose of determination of market value of the structure and the tubewell so acquired. The Union of India resisted the claim of the appellant and maintained that the compensation awarded by the Collector is reasonable and in fact no interference is called for by way of enhancement of compensation of any kind. It appears that enhancement of the claim was made by way of reference only in respect of the structure and the tubewell by the appellant. On the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issue :-

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel is that there is no basis for allowing the premium on scheduled items in respect of the structure and so also the tubewell which had been acquired by Chandigarh Administration. He further argued that the uniform rate of premium at the rate of Rs. 250/- per cent should be allowed to the appellant and a reference had been made to the order dated December 20, 1980, Ex.P1 passed by the then District Judge, Chandigarh. The learned counsel clearly admitted that the appellant had not stepped into the witness box for substantiating/supporting his averments for demanding the higher rate of compensation nor any evidence had been led as to in what manner, the case of the appellant could be treated alike as in the judgment rendered in LAC No. 91 of 1979, titled as Ranjit Singh v. Union of India. In the absence of any such evidence, the learned District Judge correctly held that the appellant is not entitled to any enhancement of the compensation awarded in respect of structure and the tubewell which presumably existed on the acquired land. The finding of the learned District Judge in this regard is upheld.