State of Uttaranchal Through Collector, Tehri Garhwal. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation v. Sri Vijai Kumar
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 19 Apr 2006
- Bench
- PRAFULLA C PANT
Provisions considered
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. 4, 4(1), 54
- Land Acquisition Act, 1984 s. 18
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. To what relief, if any, the claimants are entitled? 5) Perusal of the record shows, the Special Land Acquisition Officer while assessing the value of and building acquired, relied on the sale deeds of the year 1981 and 1982 i.e. about two to three…
Judgment
First Appeal No. 54 of 2005 State of Uttaranchal Through Collector, Tehri Garhwal. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation through its Chief Managing Director, Head Officer, Bhagirati Puram, Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. ………… Defendants – Appellants Versus Sri Vijai Kumar S/o late Ganga Sharan Agrawal Smt. Kusum Agrawal W/o late Sri Vinod Kumar. Sri Ravindra Kumar S/o late Sri Vinod Kumar. Sri Rajiv Kumar S/o late Sri Vinod Kumar. Sri Chandra Prakash S/o late Sri Vinod Kumar. Sri Sanjai Kumar S/o late Sri Vinod Kumar . Sri Vidya Sagar S/o late Sri Ganga Sharan. Sri Vikram Chand S/o late Sri Ganga Sharan. All R/o Suman Chouk, Tehri District Tehri Garhwal. ………… Claimants-Respondents
Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the appellant No. 2. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Advocate for claimants-respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Dt: 19th April, 2006. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) This appeal, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.12.2001, passed by learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, whereby compensation awarded has been enhanced by Rs. 2,65,131.79 paise favour of claimants-respondents. 2) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent’s land bearing Khata No. 65 (survey sheet No. 92 / 325) situated in Ward No. 5 of old Tehri town was acquired by Government for the purposes of construction of Tehri Dam. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 10.03.1984 followed by Notification dated 23.03.1985 under Section 6 of aforesaid Act, in respect of which Special Land Acquisition Officer (Irrigation) Tehri gave its award on 23.03.1987. The Special Land Acquisition Officer assessed the value of land measuring area 4.138 acres with buildings standing thereon (including land, building trees belonging the present claimants-respondents) Rs. 14,21,057.21 paise with solatium at Rs. 4,26,317.16 paise and interest at the rate of 12% per annum amounting to Rs. 5,15,318.11 paise, totalling to Rs. 23,62,692.48 paise, of which present claimants-respondents’ share was Rs. 2,69,667.21 paise. Dissatisfied by the same, on the application of the respondents, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 to the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal (L.A.R. No. 12 of 1987), who after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs. 2,65,131.79 paise. Aggrieved by the same the State and Tehri Hydro Development Corporation preferred appeal. 3) We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. 4) The issues framed by learned reference court the matter are as under:
Whether, compensation awarded is inadequate? If so, what is the proper compensation for acquired property?
To what relief, if any, the claimants are entitled? 5) Perusal of the record shows, the Special Land Acquisition Officer while assessing the value of and building acquired, relied on the sale deeds of the year 1981 and 1982 i.e. about two to three years before the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We are of the view the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not considered increasing of the market value of the land, in the intervening period between sale deeds relied, and land acquired. Records of the reference court shows in support of their case the claimants- respondents filed certified copies of the sale deeds viz. Ext. 1, Ext. 2 and Ext. 3, which relate to near by land sold in the month of January of the year 1985 i.e. the month and year nearer the date of acquisition. From sale deeds, it appears market value of the nearby land was not less than Rs. 30 per sq. ft.
The statement of P.W. 3, Vijay Pal Singh, seller land mentioned the aforesaid sale deeds, has corroborated the transfer of land at said rate. As such, we have no reason to disagree with the view taken by reference court in coming to the conclusion that the market value of land acquired, assessed by Special Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 1,83,216.60 paise is, infact, by Rs. 1,46,790/- from the actual value of the land. 6) The finding of learned reference court on value of the building also based on cogent trustworthy evidence. P.W. 1, Architect A.S. Kataria, statement has given reasons for valuation of building. He has found the building was constructed over an area 2587 sq. ft. on the ground floor and 1210 sq. ft. on the first floor, and as such, the construction cost after taking into consideration, the materials in the building was arrived at Rs. 4,05,065/- In the process of valuation, the Architect, thereafter, into account depreciation and valued the building, on the date of acquisition at Rs.
3,11,647/-, which does not appear to be unreasonable. In view of that fact, we are in agreement with learned reference court the value of the building of claimants - respondents is Rs. 1,65,000/- as against Rs. 1,34,385/-, assessed Special Land Acquisition Officer. 7) We find no error in the impugned award assessing the value of the property of the claimants-respondents at Rs. 3,12,442/- (Rs. 1,46,790/- land; Rs. 1,65,000/- building and Rs. 652 for trees). In addition to said amount, the claimants-respondents were entitled, under law, the solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which together, claimants-present respondents were entitled to compensation tune of Rs. 5,19,799/- as against Rs. 2,69,667.21 awarded the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is pertinent to mention here, since, claimants-respondents, who were uprooted the old Tehri town with their business, were further rightly allowed a sum of Rs.
15,000/- towards the shifting expenses. Therefore, there is no error of law or that of fact awarding further compensation Rs. 2,654,131.79 paise the claimants by reference court. 8) For reasons as discussed above, the appeal liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) Dt. 19th April, 2006. H. Negi
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — ss. 4, 4(1), 54; Land Acquisition Act, 1984 — s. 18.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 19 Apr 2006. The bench was PRAFULLA C PANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.