Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAMESH DUTT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/08/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3724 OF 1990
State of Punjab
V.
Ramesh Dutt
O R D E R
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 [for short, the "Act"] was published on October
16,1970 acquiring a large extent of land admeasuring 180
acres in revenue estate of Bhatinda. The award was made
under Section 11 on March 24,l978. The appellant claimed
compensation for the land and also for loss of business of
poultry farm run in the land. The compensation @ Rs.l0/- per
sq.yd.was awarded by the Additional District judge which
was affirmed by the High Court as enhancement thereof was
not pressed. Thus, as far as the quantum of compensation
for the land is concerned, the determination at market value
of Rs 10 per sq.ya. has become final.
The only question in the appeal of the claimant is:
whether the claimant would be entitled to compensation for
loss of business? As per clause fourthly of Section 23(1) of
the Act, in determining the amount of compensation to be
awarded for the land acquired under the Act, the Court shall
also take into consideration the damages, if any sustained
by the person interested at the time of the Collector’s
taking possession of the land for loss of his earnings. The
yardstick, therefore, is the compensation for the loss of
business as on the date of taking possession. It is seen, as
found by the reference Court, that the appellant remained in
possession upto April 26, 1977 and continued his business.
It was admitted in the cross-examination by the appellant
that he was disposing of the birds in poultry farm even at
the time of his adducing the evidence. Accordingly, the
District Judge recorded the finding thus:
"In cross-examination he
admitted that he started disposing
of the birds in the Poultry Farm
and that the acquisition of Poultry
Farm could not have made any
difference for the disposal of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
broilers, which were otherwise to
be disposed off. According to him,
he disposed them of in routine
business. Besides this, the
produced on record Exh.PX, copy of
the judgment of Shri Saranjit Singh
Greal, District Judge. Roop Nagar,
dated 26.4.1977, Exh.P copy of the
Judgment dated 22.9.1975 passed by
Shri Shamshad Ali Khan District
Judge, Ropar. These copies of the
judgments were produced with view
to prove that he is entitled to
compensation on account of loss of
business."
Having illegally remained in possession and carried on
the business he did not suffer any loss in earnings. On the
other hand, he had reaped the benefits. So he is not
entitled to get further compensation.
The High Court obviously was in error in directing
payment of compensation for one year for the dislocation of
his business at the rate of Rs.1/- for one month per bird
for 12,000 birds. However, since the State has not
questioned this amount in this appeal and since the
connected appeal is confined only to the additional benefits
under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, we need not disturb the
findings of the learned Single Judge in awarding
compensation at that rate, though we find it illegal. The
appeal of the claimant, therefore, merits no further
consideration. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As far as the State appeal is concerned, in view of the
fact that the award of the Collector is of March 24, 1978,
the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 granting solatium u/s 23(2),
additional amount at 12% per annum from the date of the
notification till date of award or taking possession,
whichever is earlier under Section 23(1-A) and enhanced
interest under Section 28 proviso clearly has no
application. Accordingly, the additional amounts granted
stand set aside. Instead, the award of the District Judge
granting solatium @ 15% on enhanced compensation and
interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of
taking possession till date of deposit stands upheld.
The appeal of the State is accordingly allowed. No
costs.