UNION OF INDIA Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1930 and 1932 of filed by the Union of India and Cross-Objections Nos. 133/C-I of 1988 and 135/C-I of 1988 filed by the claimants as they arise out of the common Award of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda dated May 26, 1984.

(2.) In pursuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after to be referred as the 'Act') dated May 10, 1979, land situated in the revenue estate of village Mehna, Tehsil and District Bhatinda was acquired for the setting up of Cantonment at Bhatinda. Along with the said land, the superstructures belonging to the landowners were also take possession of. The two Cross-Objectors who are before me also owned buildings in question. This Court is not concerned with the market value of the acquired land because it formed part of a separate Award. By the Award under challenge before me the market value of the superstructures was evaluated. A.W. 1 Shri H.S. Virdi, retired S.D.E. stepped into the witness box and deposed that he had prepared the estimate of the structures Ex. A.1. The estimated costs of the buildings were Rs. 19780.66 in Regular Appeal No. 1930 of 1984 and Rs. 63280.19 in Regular First Appeal No. 1932 of 1984. On the other hand, R.W. 1 Shri Bishan Singh, S.D.E. prepared the estimate of the plinth area describing the specifications and the conditions of the structures. In the Award under challenge a finding has been recorded that the appellants raised construction in the year 1976 and notification acquiring the land along with the superstructures was issued in the year 1979 and, therefore, the question involved in this case is as to whether some cuts have to be applied to the valuations given by Mr. H.S. Virdi, A.W. 1 by way of depreciation. The Land Acquisition Court has taken the view that cuts must be applied by way of deprecation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the landowners-appellants have vehemently argued that no cut should be applied by way of deprecation in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in an unreported judgment in State of Kerala v. Chakala Lonoppan Palu etc., 1979 UJ 170. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are reproduced below :-