http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: JASPAL SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order, made on November 15, 1985 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court  dismissing in  limine LPA  No.1356 by confirming the judgment  of the  learned single Judge dated November 9, 1979 in RFA No.779/75.      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  (1 of  1894) (for short, the ‘Act’) was published on July  11, 1977  acquiring a large track of land including the land  in question  for extension  of the  cantonment  in Amritsar.  The  award  under  Section  11  was  mad  and  on reference under  Section 18  of the  Act came to be filed in the civil  Court on  June  15,  1983  which  determined  the compensation for  loss of profits to the appellant’s poultry at Rs.6,54,637/-.  Since the  Assistant Director  of Poultry Farm had  notified to  the Land Acquisition Officer that the rate of  return per  bird was at Rs.1.38 per month and there were 2500 birds in the poultry farm, the Additional District Judge applying  15 years’  multiplier, came to determine the above amount.  In writ petition, the learned single Judge of the High  Court reversed  the said finding and held that the appellant at  best would be entitled to Rs.31,050/- for loss of business  for a reasonable period of 5 and 6 months. That was   confirmed by the Division  Bench. Thus  this appeal by special leave.  This appeal,  on behalf  of the  respondent, seems to  have been  filed due  to which we need not go into merits to the extent upheld by the High Court.      Shri  Raju   Ramachandran,   learned   senior   counsel appearing for  the appellant,  contends  that  under  clause fourthly of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, if the damage sustained  by the  appellant,  at  the  time  of  the Collector’s taking  possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition is  such as  is injuriously  affecting his other property, movable  or immovable,  in any other manner or his earnings, the  appellant is  entitled to  the  compensation. Equally, compensation is claimed under clause fifthly, since as a  result of the acquisition, he was made to travel 5 Kms from the  border of  the State  to Pakistan and could secure the land  in an insecure place as a result of the search and had to  shift his  business to other place. Taking all these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

factors into  consideration, the amount awarded in the award by the  civil Court  cannot be  said to  be unjustifiable or arbitrary warranting interference by the High Court. We find no force in the contention.      Sub-section (1)  of Section 23 itself envisages that in determining the  amount of  compensation to  be awarded  for land acquired  under the  Act, the  Court  shall  take  into consideration the  loss of  earnings as  a component for the acquisition of the property. The mere fact that the claimant was displaced  on  account  of  acquisition  and  could  not resuscitate himself  by establishing a poultry farm business anywhere, cannot  be  a  ground  under  clause  fourthly  of Section 23(1)  to determine  the compensation  on that basis and his  loss of  earnings till  date of resettlement should not be  determined in  that  behalf.  We  find  that  it  is difficult to  give such a construction to clause fourthly of Section  23(1).  What  it  contemplates  of  is  that  as  a consequence of  acquisition, if  any damage  is sustained by the claimant or interested person at the time of Collector’s taking possession  of the  land  injuriously  affecting  the other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner or his earnings from the property, the Collector is required to determine the  compensation as is available on the date when the compensation  is awarded.  The mere  fact that after the acquisition, the  interested person  or claimant has quickly rehabilitated himself or set up business once over, or could not start  his business  lately would  not be  a  ground  to increase the  compensation for  the loss  of business  as  a component of  determination of  the compensation on "loss of profit".      Equally,  clause   fifthly  is   only  consequence   of acquisition of  the land  by the Collector. If the person is compelled to  change his  residence or  place of business by reason  of  the  acquisition,  reasonable  transit  expenses incidental to such change, in other words, transport charges incurred for  the displacement and carrying the material due to displacement  are required  to be awarded, in addition to the compensation  determined. But  the mere  fact  that  the claimant happened  to secure  alternative land  at a far off place and  that too said to be an insecure place, even if it is assumed  to be  so, cannot be a ground to contend that he is also entitled to compensation under clause fifthly due to change of  business and  setting up  of the  business in  an insecure place.  Under  theses  circumstances,  the  learned single judge  perhaps may  be right  in granting  the amount only for a reasonable period of 6 to 7 months on the facts n this case.  We are  not expressing  any concluded opinion on it. But it cannot be laid as a principle of law that loss of business till  the claimant  is resusitaated in his business in securing a place and the expenses incurred in that behalf also should  always be  a component  of the determination of the compensation under Section 23(1).      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.