COLLECTOR Vs. MOHAN LAL RAINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Collectors appeal against a decree passed by Additional District Judge, Srinagar, in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1990, here in after the Act, made to him by the appellant at the instance of the respondents.

(2.) THREE residential houses of the respondents situated at Habba Kadal, Srinagar, were acquired by the Government for a taxi stand, for -which a notice under section 6 of the Act was issued on 20. 12. 1972. The land under and appurtenant to these houses was 2193 sq. ft. The Collector got an estimate of its value of the property prepared by an engineer, and alongside the respondents also submitted their own estimate of its value, Eventually, he made an award in the amount of Rs 67,370/ - on 17.5.1973, the break -up being Rs 10,965/ - on account of the price of the land calculated at the rate of Rs. 51/ - per sqft, and Rs. 56,405/ - on account of the cost of the super -structure. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, the respondents received the same under protest, concomitantly seeking a reference to the court in terms of section 18 of the Act. A reference was made accordingly.

(3.) BEFORE the Additional District Judge, the respondents besides claiming Jabirana and interest, claimed a sum of Rs, 30,000/ - on account of the market value of the land, and a further sum of Rs. 3,21,000/ - on account of the value of the houses built on it. These sums, they contended, represented the market value of the land and the houses built on it. In addition to it, they claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - on account of the expenses which they had to incur for changing their residence. This claim of the respondents was resisted by the Collector on two grounds; one, that the compensation determined by him was proper, and two, that the reference was barred by time. The parties led evidence and the Additional District Judge on consideration of the same made an award in the amount of Rs. 1,25,000/ - which in his opinion represented to market value of the houses acquired, including the land under and appurtenant thereto. In addition to it, he awarded Jabirana and interest on this amount at the rate of 15% and 3% respectively; the issue in regard to limitation not having been pressed by the appellant.