BABULAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to encourage industrialization, in 1974, the State of Rajasthan had acquired land in village Jhareda, District Alwar, for the benefit of Rajasthan INdustrial Development and INvestment Corporation Limited (henceforth to be referred as "riico" for short ). According to the notification published on 13. 9. 74, the State had proposed to acquire appellant's 25 Bigha of land. On 25. 12. 74, the possession of the said land was handed over to RIICO. The appellant participated in the acquisition proceeding/before the Land Acquisition Officer (henceforth to be referred as "lao" for short ). Vide award dated 19. 5. 1975, the LAO directed that by way of compensation Rs. 1,25,000/- should be paid to the appellant.

(2.) SINCE the appellant was aggrieved by the said award, he submitted an application before the LAO and prayed that the compensation for the land should be Rs. 5,000/- per Bigha instead of Rs. 2,500/- per Bigha as decided by the LAO. He further prayed that the compensation for the structures constructed alongwith the well should also be paid to him. Moreover, according to him, no compensation was paid for the eight trees which were standing on his land, Further, he claimed that no compensation was paid for the removal of pumping set installation, which should have been paid to him. He also requested that the total amount of compensation should be paid alongwith an interest @ 15% p. a. The LAO referred the case to the Civil Judge, Alwar. Vide order dated 23. 7. 92 the learned Civil Judge was pleased to partly allow the reference. While the learned Judge had increased the compensation for the land, he had disallowed any compensation for the trees, for the construction around the well and had refused to increase the compensation for the standing crop. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before us.

(3.) THE LAO has awarded Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for the well, but has not awarded any compensation for the permanent structures around the well. THE learned Judge has observed that the said compensation includes the compensation for the permanent structure. Moreover, he has reasoned that the compensation is reasonable considering the fact that the appellant had used the well for the purpose of irrigation. THE fact that the well had been used by the appellant could not decrease the extent of compensation to be awarded for the said well. After all, a displaced person is not only compensated for being displaced, but is also compensated for his future needs which would arise when he is resettled on another piece of land. In case the compensation of land and the structure therein are being capitalised separately, as in the present case, then a separate compensation should be paid for the structures standing in the land. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tejumal Bhojwani and Ors. vs. State of U. P. {jt 2003 (supp. 2) SC 194} = (RLW 2004 (1) SC 28 ). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that separate compensation for tube- well and structure is liable to be paid. Thus in our opinion besides the payment of compensation for the well, compensation for the water storage tank and the room should also be paid. Thus, the compensation of Rs. 8,000/- seems to be on the lower side. We are therefore inclined to grant a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the water storage tank and Rs. 3,500/- for the room, besides Rs. 8,000/- already awarded by the LAO and the learned Civil Judge for the well.