Union of India & Anr. v. M/S. Lahori Bricks & Co.

1. It be noted that Respondents No.3(a) and (b)are yet to be served. It be further noted that way back on 6.7.2010, respondent No.2(a)Snnt.Savitri Kakkar has expired. Till date the legal heirs have not been brought on record.

2. It appears that notice has been issued in routine inasmuch as I do not find any prima-facie view recorded when notice was issued in the appeal.

3. I am chartering a rather unusual course for the reason I find that the appellants have not questioned the fair market value of the acquired land but only questioned the LA.App.No.279/2010 Page1of[3] 2011:DHC:14066 J compensation paid in sum of ^1,09,500/- on account of the fact that to run a brick kiln, the respondent had erected certain structures, obviously for the residence of the staff, and in respect whereof the Land Acquisition Collector had not determined any compensation.

4. The respondents were lease-holders of the land and I note that the only dispute in the reference pertains to whether they would be entitled to be recompensed ^1,09,500/- towards the cost of the structures.

5. Impugned decision would reveal that the fact of the respondents being in possession of the subject lands and carrying on business of running a brick kiln has been decided in favour of the respondents with reference to the Land Acquisition Collector serving a notice upon the respondents requiring them to remove the materials from the site.

6. With reference to the superstructures and the value thereof, the learned Reference Court has relied upon a report Ex.AW-1/1 wherein Sh.Om Prakash Goel, an architect and valuer, examined as PW-1, while proving the report, had stated that he had valued the structures after a personal visit to the site. That he measured the structures and determined the price thereof with reference to CWPD's schedule 1962 and gave depreciation @7.5%.

7. I find that the Union of India has not led any evidence in rebuttal to question the report.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that the report does not bring out the basis thereof, a plea which I reject LA.App.No.279/2010 Page2of[3] sj { for the reason, the author thereof has clearly stated that he prepared the report with reference to CPWD's schedule 1962.

9. Certainly, the respondents would be entitled to compensation in respect of the superstructure erected by them on the acquired land save and except the valuation report Ex.AW-1/1 and the testimony of Sh.Om Prakash Goel, I find no other evidence on which compensation for superstructure can be assessed. I reiterate that the appellant has led no evidence in rebuttal.

10. Learned counsel has cited a decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1995 SC 840 The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. S.O.Tumari. The said decision pertains to valuation of land by a so-called expert on valuation and the adverse comment by the Supreme Court qua the report was that the basis on which the expert had valued the land was not brought out in the report. In the instant case,the author of the valuation report has brought out the basis. The same is his adopting CPWD rate schedule as of the year 1962 and depressing the value by 1V2% on account of the building being old.

11. Notwithstanding respondents not being served; since I have prima facie reflected upon the matter and while so doing has conclusively opined against the appellant I dismiss the appeal but refrain from imposing any costs. -r- PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. JULY 15, 2011 dk LA.App.No.279/2010 Page3of[3]