RFA No.1797 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1797 of 1994 Date of decision 26.5.2009. Ved Parkash & Co. ...... Appellant. versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent. Present : Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S.Chandial, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. L.N.MITTAL,J.(Oral) This is appeal for enhancement of compensation as awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment dated 7.4.1994. State of Haryana vide notification dated 31.8.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( in short – the Act), notified certain land situated in village Devi Nagar, for acquisition for development and utilization of land as recreational and commercial for Sector-3, Urban Estate, Panchkula. Land Acquisition Collector, vide award No.6 dated 27.3.1989 awarded compensation for the acquired land as well as super structures and trees and also for loss of business and shifting charges. RFA No.1797 of 1994 2 The appellant had taken on lease a plot of Khasra Nos.130 and 131 from its owner on rent @ 2700/- per annum and was carrying on business of supply of bajri etc. therein. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his aforesaid award, awarded compensation of Rs.14,757/- for the existing structures of the appellant in the aforesaid land i.e. for huts, rooms and bajri screening jharnas. The appellant filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act claiming Rs.5,00,000/- for the existing structures and Rs.3,50,000/- for loss of business and shifting of business. The respondent in its written statement pleaded that the Land Acquisition Collector has correctly awarded the compensation as assessed by technical expert i.e. Executive Engineer of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition? OPP 2. What was the market value of the of the super structure? OPP 3. What was the market value of the trees, existing if any? OPP 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation on account of loss of business ? OPP 5. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation on account of shifting charges ? OPP 6. To what amount claimants are entitled towards enhanced compensation? OPP 7. Relief. RFA No.1797 of 1994 3 Learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 7.4.1994, found issue Nos 1 and 3 to be not arising from the pleadings of the parties. Under issue No.2, it was found that the appellant is entitled to Rs.18,446/- instead of Rs.14,757/- as compensation for the existing structures. Under issue No.4, the appellant has been awarded Rs.17,500/- for loss of income from the business for one year. Under issue No.5, the appellant was held not entitled to any compensation for shifting charges. Under issue No.6, it was held that the appellant is entitled to Rs.3689/- as enhanced compensation over and above that awarded by the Collector for the structures. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The appellant examined Shri H.L.Dhammi, Superintending Engineer (Retired) as PW-1. He gave his report Ex.P1 along with site plan Ex.P-2 regarding value of the existing structures. He determined the value thereof to be Rs.58,000/- including Rs.800/- for eight trees, although the appellant did not claim any trees to be existing in the land in question. The appellant himself appeared as PW-2 and stated about his own version. On the other hand, the respondent examined Preet Mohan Singh RW-1 Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, who proved his reports Ex.R-1 to R-3 regarding value of the existing structures. The Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation for the existing structures of the appellant according to these reports. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the report of Shri H.L.Dhammi (PW-1) has been completely ignored by the RFA No.1797 of 1994 4 Reference Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent's expert witness is disinterested witness and has been rightly believed by the Reference Court. It may be noticed that the Reference Court allowed Rs.3689/- enhanced compensation by disallowing the deduction made by the respondent's expert for not being allowed to remove the foundation etc and for not adopting standard section of foundation, roofing etc. It is correct that respondent's expert Preet Mohan Singh (RW- 1) had no personal interest. However, his assessment, being an official of HUDA for which the land was acquired, would tend to under estimate the value in the same manner as the report of appellant's expert would tend to over estimate the value. Consequently, the report of respondent's expert could not be followed blindly nor the report of appellant's expert could be ignored altogether. In these circumstances, some guess work has to be applied. The appellant's expert has not given detailed calculation of the market value and has applied flat rate of 55 per sq. feet for covered area of office and flat rate of Rs.35/- per sq.ft and Rs.27/- per sq.feet for labour huts and Rs.50/- per feet for brick-wall. On the other hand, respondent's expert has given detailed calculation for all the materials used in the structures. Consequently, the report of respondent's expert is more reliable, but some more amount has to be enhanced on account of tendency to under-value the structures. Accordingly, I determine the compensation for the existing structures of the appellant at Rs.27,500/-. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that under issue No.4, the amount of Rs.17,500/- as compensation for loss of income RFA No.1797 of 1994 5 due to shifting of business needs to be enhanced. I find no merit in the contention because the said amount has been awarded by the Reference Court as per income for one year as depicted in income tax return of the appellant himself. Consequently, the same does not deserve to be enhanced. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed partly and it is held that the appellant shall be entitled to Rs.27,500/- as compensation for the existing structures along with all statutory benefits in accordance with the provisions of Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act and the appellant shall also be entitled to Rs.28,130/- as compensation for loss of business as awarded by the Reference Court without any statutory benefits thereon. ( L.N.MITTAL ) JUDGE May 26, 2009 sv