CH KEHAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HOUSE bearing Nos. 6034 to 6047 situate in Ward No. 14 of the Delhi Municipal committee was acquired by the Delhi State Government for the construction of a municipal Girls School. In proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector for determining the compensation thereof, Umrao Singh, one of the owners, stated that he was the owner of one-half share in this house and the remaining one-half belonged to his brother, Kehar Singh. The position taken Kehar Singh, on the other hand, was that the house belonged to him, his brother, Umrao Singh, and harpal Singh, adopted son of their brother Risal Singh in equal shares. The collector awarded a sum of Rs. 49,325/6/- as the amount of compensation for the property in dispute. As regards the question of apportionment, a reference under section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), was made to the Court to determine as to whom this compensation money should be paid. Umrao Singh alone filed an application under Section 18 of the Act on 10-12 1952. His objections to the Collector's award were (1) that the area of the land acquired was 467 square yards and not 443. 8 square yards, as found by the collector, (2) that the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate because the market-value of the property on the date of acquisition was not less than Rs. 93,400/-, (3) that the Collector made a mistake in not allowing compensation under Section 23 clause sixthly and (4) that the Collector erred in not holding the applicant entitled to one half of the compensation money, as he was owner of one half of the property acquired, the other half being owned by kehar Singh. On receipt of the application of Umrao Singh, a reference was mate by the Collector to the Court under Section 19 of the Act. The Court issued notices to Kehar Singh and Harpal Singh under Section 20 of the Act. On 5-2-1954 both of them filed their separate replies wherein they stated that the compensation assessed by the Collector was inadequate and the same be enhanced and divided between them and Umar Singh in equal shares.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) THE learned Judge held that the area of the property acquired was 443. 8 square yards as found by the Land Acquisition Collector and the total compensation payable in respect thereof was Rs. 63,615711/ -. With regard to issue No. 4 it was held that in the connected reference under Section 31 (2) of the Act the parties had agreed that the proceedings should be stayed pending ihe decision of the dispute which formed the subject-master of a separate civil suit between them. No decision was, therefore, given on this issue. The learned Judge also ordered that