JAGAN NATH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by claimants against the 'award' of the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,42,948.00 that has been awarded for the super structure on the land that has been acquired, has been challenged as being inadequate.

(2.) THE land belonging to the appellant was notified for acquisition Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'act') on 17th February, 1975. On 29th March, 1976, Collector gave his award with regard to the land that had been acquired. As the claimants/appellants claimed that there were super structures on the land in question, the Collector went into the matter and vide a supplementary award dated 29th September, 1976 found that an amount of Rs. 19,597.00was to be paid for the brick kiln, Rs. 18,623.00 for the labour huts and Rs. 7,695.00 for the office and tubewell building. In addition to these amounts, the Collector also awarded the other statutory amounts available to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the appellants approached the Additional District Judge, Faridkot in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming that the award given by the Collector was wholly inadequate and they were liable to be paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 for brick kiln, and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 for the firing of the brick kiln at the time of its installation, a sum of Rs. 35,000/for the Tubewell, a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 for the tubewell and office building. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 on account of the labour huts and about Rs. 26,500.00 on account of the lease money paid to one Bikkar Singh in addition for digging of brick earth from his land. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 was also claimed on account of loss of business.

(3.) THE claimants to prove their case examined Amarjit Aggarwal as AW1, who had proved the reports Ex. A1 and A2 with regard to the value of the brick kiln, Kartar Singh and Mohan Lal as AW-2 and AW-3 respectively to prove the receipt Ex. A4 said to have been executed by Bikkar Singh vide which he had accepted an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 from the appellants so that the brick-earth could be dug out from his land, Sham Lal and Vidya Sagar as AW-5 and AW-6 respectively - the brick kiln owners who deposed as to the income that had been derived from the brick-kiln and that the price of coal in the year 1974-75 was Rs. 600/650 per tonne and the claimant Jagan Nath Aggarwal who examined himself as AW-7 deposed as to the amount that had been spent while setting up the brick-kiln and that he had derived an income of Rs. 64,000/from the brick-kiln during the year in which the acquisition had been made. The Court came to the conclusion that the reports Exs. A-1 and A-2 which had been prepared in the year 1986 by Amarjit Aggarwal-AW-1 could not be relied upon for determining compensation with respect to the land that had been acquired in the year 1974, whereas the report is said to have been recorded in the year 1986; that the compensation awarded for the brick-kiln was, however, inadequate and the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 92,948.00 on account of its value that a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 was due to the claimants on account of loss of business as it was his own case in evidence that he had been earning of about Rs. 60,000.00 therefrom that the claim with regard to the money of Bikkar Singh could not be granted as the receipt Ex. A-4 appeared to be a created document and having held as above, enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 45,915/which had been awarded by the Collector, to Rs. 1,42,948/ -. Still dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the claimants have come to this Court by way of the present appeal.