UNION OF INDIA Vs. KAULAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the official gazette on December 2, 1977. Land and super-structures standing thereupon were intended to be acquired. A notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on July 5, 1978 acquiring the aforesaid property. A separate award with regard to the agricultural lands and the lands under-neath the construction and the abadi land was given. The said award is no more under challenge in the present appeal. The claim in the present appeal is only with regard to the value of the super structure.

(2.) SINCE the construction of the houses and super structures did not fall under any standard type of construction and as such the PWD schedule of rates could not be made applicable for evaluating the aforesaid structures. The Land Acquisition Collector appointed Shri B.L. Chhabra, Engineer in the Military Estate Office, Pathankot to evaluate the aforesaid structures. Shri Chhabra carried out the measurements of all the buildings of the village including the structures involved in acquisition proceedings and classified those structures in different categories. The inventory was prepared. The said inventory was submitted to PWD authorities with the request that they should find out per square foot cost price of each category. Thereafter the PWD authorities assessed the valuation with the help of cost of construction so worked out by Shri B.L. Chhabra. The said valuation assessed by PWD authorities was accepted by the Land Acquisition Collector. On that basis, the compensation was assessed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the claimant, the Land Acquisition Collector, while determining the amount of compensation for the structures had not taken into consideration the rising prices and other relevant material and the compensation was assessed merely on the basis of the report of the Military Estate Office. A grievance was made by the claimant that the Military Estate Office was in fact acquiring department and, therefore, the valuation assessed by the said department could not be taken to be a fair valuation of the market value of the acquired structures. She claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for her acquired structure.