IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal No. 79 of 2008 (Old No. 569 of 1982) 1. Prem Prakash Bhalla S/o Shri Banwari Lal Bhalla R/o Bhalla Building, Bhalla Road, Hardwar. 2. Ram Prakash Bhalla S/o Shri Banwari Lal Bhalla Through his father Banwari Lal Bhalla Constituted Attorney, resident of Bhalla Building, Bhalla Road, Hardwar. ...…………. Claimant / Appellants Versus State of Uttar Pradesh Through Collector, Saharanpur District Saharanpur. ...…………. O.P. / Respondent Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the claimant / appellant. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General for the respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.09.1982, passed by learned District Judge, Saharanpur, in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 196 of 1981. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 2 3) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the property in question consists of two flats of a building known as ‘Vishwa Shanti Grah’ situated near Har-Ki- Pauri (Haridwar). The State of Uttar Pradesh issued notification under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire the building, on 28.02.1974 and 01.03.1974, respectively. Possession of the building was taken on 21.06.1979. The building was acquired for widening of the road from Tonga stand to Jammu & Kashmir House at Har-Ki-Pauri. Work was to be done by the Public Works Department of the State. The owners / claimants (present appellants) filed their objections before the Land Acquisition Officer. The said officer, after hearing the parties, gave an award on 02.03.1981, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,552/- along with 15 per cent solatium and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum thereon. Aggrieved by said award, the claimants moved an application on 11.04.1981, alleging that the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. On this, a reference was made under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act to the District Judge, Saharanpur (earlier Haridwar was a Tehsil of District Saharanpur). 4) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issue was framed for determination, by the lower court: 3 Whether, amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate? If so, what amount of compensation should be paid to the claimants? 5) After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, learned District Judge Saharanpur, vide impugned order dated 09.09.1982, awarded further sum of Rs. 4,740/- along with 15 per cent solatium and interest at the rate of 6 per cent thereon. The claimants were still dissatisfied with the enhanced sum. Hence, this appeal was filed by them before the Allahabad High Court in November 1982, where it was admitted on 03.11.1982. The appeal is received by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 6) It is pertinent to mention here that the property acquired is not a land but two flats of the first floor of the building acquired. As such, it is not a case of the kind where the price of the land can be said to have gone up. Rather, it is a case where depreciation of property is a relevant factor. From the perusal of the statement of A.W. 1 Prem Prakash Bhalla it is evident that the two flats were purchased by his grandfather Panna Lal Bhalla in the year 1957, and inherited by him and his brother Ram Prakash Bhalla. It is stated in his cross-examination by A.W. 1 Prem Prakash Bhalla that 4 as far as he recollects the flats were constructed by one Seth Amba Prasad, in the year 1950. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that in the year 1968, the flats were let out on rent at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per annum. The flats were later on let out in the year 1971-72 to one Prem Chand Tiwari at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per annum. On its basis it is argued that the value of the two flats is not less than Rs 40,000/-. However, on perusal of the cross-examination of A.W. 1 Prem Prakash Bhalla, this Court finds that he has stated that he cannot tell as to what was the cost of the flats. He has further admitted that he did not make any addition in the construction inherited. Not only this, the most significant part of the statement is this that the claimants are paying municipal tax at the rate of Rs. 75/- per annum as house tax to the Municipal Board, Haridwar. That being so, the value of the property cannot be said to be more than what has been awarded by the lower court and the Land Acquisition Officer. 7) The perusal of the record shows that the District Judge has considered the report of the Engineers of the Public Works Department that the five flats of the first floor of the building acquired had a value of Rs. 58,230/- after depreciating its value considering the age of the building. The District Judge further found that the value of the two flats as such comes out to be Rs. 23,292/-, while the Land Acquisition Officer has 5 awarded only Rs. 18,552/- with solatium and interest thereon. Accordingly, the District Judge awarded further sum of Rs. 4,740/- with 15 per cent solatium and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum thereon. This Court does not find any error of law committed by the District Judge, Saharanpur in holding that the value of the two flats, considering that the building was old, was not more than Rs 23,292/-. 8) Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt.: April 01, 2009 H.Negi 6