GURDEV SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which compensation to the tune of Rs. 64,643/- for the tubewell installed at the acquired land has been granted.

(2.) THE land belonging to the appellants situated in the revenue estate of village Bhucho Kalan, Tehsil and District Bathinda, was acquired. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 10.5.1979 and under Section 6 was issued on 4.10.1979. The tubewell installed in the said land as well as the residential house belonging to the appellants were also acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') awarded compensation of Rs. 61,038/- for the tubewell. However, no compensation was awarded for the house acquired. Dissatisfied with the award the claimants filed application under Section 18 of the Act. The claimants claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- plus statutory solatium as compensation for the tubewell. They examined A.W.1 Shri H.S. Virdee, A.W.2 Jaib Singh and A.W.3 Baldev Singh, while the Union of India examined R.W.1 Shri K.S. Gondhara, Sub Divisional Engineer. After examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, made an enhancement at the rate of 10 per cent of the difference between the valuations of the tubewell made by Shri H.S. Virdee (A.W.1) and Shri K.S. Gondhara (R.W.1), expert witnesses examined by the respective parties. However, no compensation for the house acquired was awarded. In this way an enhancement to the tune of Rs. 3605/- was made in the compensation awarded by the Collector. To challenge the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, the claimants have filed the present appeal. As the claimants have not been able to file the full Court-fee, they confined their claim to the enhancement of Rs. 34,000/- in the compensation awarded for the tubewell and they left out their claim with required to the house acquired.

(3.) THE contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants have vehemently been opposed by Ms. Ranjana Shahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. According to her, the claimants had never filed any objections to the award given by the Collector and also that the report submitted by Shri H.S. Virdee (A.W.1) cannot blindly be followed as the Additional District Judge had found that his salary was withheld by the Government and the estimates given by Shri Virdee were held to be exaggerated.