BANARSI DASS Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chandigarh Administration acquired land measuring 121.01 acres at village Buterla (Chandigarh) for development of Chandigarh by issuance of a notification dated December 28, 1974. The Land Acquisition Collector by a separate award granted compensation for the acquisition of the land. In this appeal, this Court is concerned with the determination of valuation of super structures only. The appellant is one of the several claimants who have challenged the award of the District Judge, Chandigarh, by which he has been granted a compensation of Rs. 44,352/-.

(2.) The super-structures in the case of the appellants comprise of two shops and four rooms. The District Judge has calculated the rental value at Rs. 480/- per month on the basis that one room was rented out at the rate of Rs. 45/- permonth and, therefore, the rental value of four room would come to Rs. 180/-. As regards shops, one shop was rented out in favour of Mahabir Singh (PW 5) at the rate of Rs. 150/-. The other shop is in possession of the appellant-claimant and, therefore, the District Judge fixed the rental value of the shop in possession of appellant also at the rate of Rs. 150/-. In this manner, Rs. 480/- were determined as the rental value per month. The annual rental value after multiplying 480 by 12 comes to Rs. 5,760/-. Thereafter, the District Judge has applied deduction of 30 per cent on account of repairs and collection charges. The annual rental value, according to the district Judge, in this manner came to Rs. 4032/-. A multiplier of 11 years was applied bringing out the compensation at Rs. 44,352/-.

(3.) Mr. A.S. Chahal, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that as regard the shop in possession of the appellant, the monthly income should have been taken into consideration. The arguments is untenable. Once the Court is taking into consideration the annual rental value and applying a suitable multiplier, the loss of income cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been brought on the record of the case as to what was the monthly income of the appellant.