21 August 1996
Supreme Court
Download

RAMESH DUTT Vs STATE OF PUNJAB

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B.PATTANAIK
Case number: Appeal (civil) 4140 of 1989


1

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

2

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.