BALBIR KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANDIGARH Administration in pursuance of a notification dated 16. 12. 1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), acquired land measuring 65 76 acres in village Burail for development of Chandigarh ). The appellant before this Court had three poultry sheds on about 2 Kanals of land bearing Khara No.-36/9/2. The land was owned by Jagjit Singh and Mokam Singh, whereas the appellant was only a tenant. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to how much compensation the appellant is entitled to. The Land Acquisition collector by his a warp dated l7. 13. 1981 assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 19886. The appellant under Section 18 of the Act claimed that she was entitled to a compensation of not less than Rs. 40 000/- for super structures. It was also her case that on account of her closing down the business, she had suffered a loss of business to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- as she was keeping about 1200 birds.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-1. Whether the compensation assessed, by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the poultry sheds of the claimants existing at the time of acquisition, is insufficient and inadequate ? If so, what should be the reasonable and adequate compensation for the same ?opp. 2 Whether the acquisition of the poultry shed resulted in change in place of business and loss of business to the claimant petitioner ? If so, to what amount of compensation is she entitled, on account thereof, from the respondent ? OPP.

(3.) RELIEF. 3. Both the issues were decided against the appellant. It was held under issue No. 1 that compensation assessed by the land Acquisition Collector was sufficient and adequate Under issue No. 2 it was held that since the appellant did not start the business again, she was not entitled to any compensation for loss due to change of place of business.