Judgment:
V.K. Ahuja, J.
1. This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the award passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, on 10.8.2000, vide which the reference petition filed by the respondent was allowed and she was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,28,041/- for acquisition of land and house property as against compensation of Rs.91,406/-awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, who also awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as disturbance allowance etc.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land measuring 3-32-34 Hectares was acquired by the State Government for construction of labour colony of Nathpa Jhakri Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Power Corporation Ltd. in village Punsupa-I, Tehsil Nichar, Distt. Kinnaur. The same was acquired on behalf of Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation Ltd. The land of the petitioner measuring 0-02-00 Hectares was also part of the land acquired vide Notification dated 7.11.1990. The Collector entered into a reference and awarded compensation for different varieties of land as under:
1. Bagicha Bakhal Awal Rs. 40,000/-per Bigha
2. Bagicha Bakhal Doem Rs. 38,000/- -do-
3. Bakhal Awal Rs. 16,000/- -do-
4. Bakhal Doem Rs. 13,000/- -do-
5. Banjar Kadeem Rs. 3,000/- -do-
6. Ghasni or Gair Mumkin Rs. 2,000/- -do-
3. The compensation was also granted for fruit trees, no fruit trees and structure etc. The respondent was granted compensation amounting to Rs. 91,406/- for the two storeyed house existing on the acquired land. The respondent filed reference petition under Section 18 of the Act before the learned District Judge, who vide impugned award enhanced the compensation for the land and house property to Rs. 1,28,041 as against Rs. 91,406/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In addition to this, the respondent was also held entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of disturbance allowance, shifting of machinery, loss of business etc. The respondent was also held entitled to solatium and interest under the provisions of the Act.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants were that the house was a katcha house, not built up of RCC and the learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation without their being any material and as such, those findings are liable to be set aside. It was also submitted that the learned trial Court had wrongly granted the compensation for retaining wall and it was also submitted that Rs. 50,000/- was granted on account of disturbance allowance by the learned District Judge, though this much amount had already been awarded by the Collector for shifting of business etc. Thus, it was submitted that this amount of Rs.50,000/- has been wrongly awarded in favour of the respondent and as such, those findings are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent had submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector had directed the appellants/respondents to provide alternate site, which has not been given and, therefore, some amount may be awarded for the alternate site. It was further submitted that even if no cross objections have been filed by the respondent, she can still challenge the award. To substantiate his plea, the learned Counsel for the respondent had relied upon the following two decisions:
The decision in S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore and Ors. (2007) 11 Scc 75, shows that it was observed by their Lordships that there is no need to have recourse to Order 41 Rule 33 in a case where suit of plaintiff is dismissed and he comes up in appeal claiming decree as prayed for in suit. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to challenge all findings rendered against, by trial Court and seek a decree as prayed for in plaint, from appellate Court. In that case, the plaintiff had come up in appeal against dismissal of the suit and accordingly, these observations were made by their Lordships.
The decision in Manjit Singh v. Rattan Singh and Ors. : AIR 1997 Himachal Pradesh 21, was relied upon, which was an appeal under Motor Vehicles Act and it was observed that the power can be exercised by the Court in favour of all or any of the respondents although they have not filed appeal or cross- objections. It was held that the High Court is competent to bring the award in accordance with law and to make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to make further or other order as the case may require.
5. A perusal of the record and the submissions made clearly show that the respondent has not claimed anything extra than what has been awarded by the learned District Judge in his impugned award except that she has claimed that she be granted alternate site as directed by the Land Acquisition Collector or some amount for the alternate site. Apart from this, the respondent has not challenged the findings of the learned District Judge or claimed anything in excess than what has been awarded by the learned District Judge.
6. Coming to the findings of the learned District Judge in the impugned award in regard to the valuation of the double storeyed house, the learned District Judge has referred to the statement of PW-1 Rattan Dassi and other PWs and had observed that the petitioner had relied upon the report of the Executive Engineer(Retd.) PW-4 H.S. Bisht and his report Ext. PW4/A, who concluded the value of the property at Rs. 2,93,000/-. On the other hand, there was statement of RW-1 K.K. Singta, J.E. and the report submitted by him Ext. RW1/A, wherein the value of the house property of the petitioner was assessed at Rs. 91,406/-. The learned trial court observed that the report submitted by RW-1 K.K. Singta, J.E., had been approved by the Assistant Engineer as well as Executive Engineer. The learned trial Court after referring to the evidence had rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of her land. No such document was referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent to show that she was entitled to enhanced compensation on account of acquisition of her land. In regard to the house, it was rightly observed that the house in question was not of RCC structure and it was a katcha house constructed with stones and wood, while PW-4 had worked out the market value by applying the rules for pucca RCC structure. The learned trial Court also observed that a sum of Rs. 27,010/- on account of electrical installation was shown without details of electric installations. It is clear that this amount was exorbitant keeping in view the fact that the house was a katcha house. The learned trial Court also held that the respondent was entitled to the market value of the retaining wall and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 18,354/- was awarded on account of the acquisition of her retaining wall.
7. On discussion of the evidence, the learned trial Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled in all to a sum of Rs.1,28,041/- for acquisition of her land and house property. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court is correct and it calls for no interference insofar as the valuation of the land and house property is concerned. However, as pointed out, the learned trial Court had also granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of disturbance allowance, shifting of machinery, loss of business and good will etc.
8. This amount has been awarded by the learned District Judge inspite of the fact that in the impugned award the Land Acquisition Collector had clearly held that the petitioner/respondent was entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,00/-for rehabilitation and shifting charges. This amount covered every thing including shifting of machinery, loss of businesses etc. and this sum awarded by the learned trial Court as disturbance allowance etc. cannot be said to have been awarded in accordance with law and respondent was, therefore, not entitled to this sum of Rs. 50,000/- additionally granted by the learned trial Court than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in this regard which is liable to be upheld. Coming to the plea of respondent that a direction was given by the Land Acquisition Collector to provide alternate site or some amount should be granted for the same, I am of the opinion that there is nothing as to how the Land Acquisition Collector ordered for alternate site to be provided until and unless there was an agreement with the respondent that she would be entitled to alternate site apart from the compensation awarded in her favour. No direction can be given for providing of alternate site or for payment of any amount in lieu of it.
9. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be partly allowed, which is allowed partly to this extent that a sum of Rs. 50,000/awarded by the learned trial Court as compensation for rehabilitation cannot be said to be proper and the respondent is not entitled to this amount. The appeal is allowed partly. Parities are left to bear their own costs.