Skip to content


Padmashri Humayun Mirza Vs. the Station Director, All India Radio, No. 2, Cubbon Road, Bangalore-1 - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. First Appeal No. 534 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1975Kant124; ILR1974KAR1467; 1975(1)KarLJ14
ActsRequisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 - Sections 8, 8(1), 8(2) and 9; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 25
AppellantPadmashri Humayun Mirza
RespondentThe Station Director, All India Radio, No. 2, Cubbon Road, Bangalore-1
Appellant AdvocateS.L. Simha, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM. Papanna, Jr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel
Excerpt:
.....pending before court. moreso, when court in earlier writ petition has passed an interim order stating that it would be open to port trust to issue such notices in accordance with law and in compliance with section 56. - the appellant-claimant has further stated in this appeal that he is satisfied with the award, awarding him compensation at the rate of rs. it is to be observed that it is also a well known fact......claimant was entitled to.2. the learned arbitrator held that the appellant claimant could not claim compensation at a rate higher than rs. 600/- per month, which he had claimed at least upto 1-4-1961. he further held that the provisions of the act did not permit the appellant claimant to claim compensation at an enhanced rate for the subsequent period namely from 1-4-1961 onwards. he, on this basis concluded that the amount of compensation that the appellant-claimant was entitled to was only rs. 600/- per month. it is this award that is challenged in this appeal.3. in this appeal, the appellant-claimant has restricted his claim of compensation at the rate of rs. 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961 up-to-date. the appellant-claimant has further stated in this appeal that he is satisfied.....
Judgment:

Nesargi, J.

1. This appeal is under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952. The appellant was the claimant before the Arbitrator. The appellant's property known as 'Cubbon House' in Gibbon Road, Bangalore, was requisitioned by the Central Government in order to house the All India Radio Station. An amount of Rs. 500/- per month was offered as compensation to the appellant, but the appellant did not agree that it was the proper compensation. He contended that he was to receive Rs. 600/- per month as compensation. In view of this dispute an Arbitrator was appointed as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). When the matter was taken up by the Arbitrator, the claimant gave his assessment of compensation at Rs. 600/- per month from 8-7-1954 to 31-3-1961, at Rs. 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961 to 1-4-1965 and at Rs. 2,500/- per month from 1-4-1965 to 31-3-1971. He, in support of his assessment relied mainly on the ground that the Corporation authorities of Bangalore had fixed the annual letting value on the basis of Rs. 1,500/- per mensem from 1-4-1961 and it is common knowledge that rents for buildings in Bangalore and especially in that locality had gone on rising during different periods. It was contended on behalf of the Central Government that the amount of Rs. 500/- per month offered by it was the proper assessment of compensation the appellant claimant was entitled to.

2. The learned Arbitrator held that the appellant claimant could not claim compensation at a rate higher than Rs. 600/- per month, which he had claimed at least upto 1-4-1961. He further held that the provisions of the Act did not permit the appellant claimant to claim compensation at an enhanced rate for the subsequent period namely from 1-4-1961 onwards. He, on this basis concluded that the amount of compensation that the appellant-claimant was entitled to was only Rs. 600/- per month. It is this Award that is challenged in this appeal.

3. In this appeal, the appellant-claimant has restricted his claim of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961 up-to-date. The appellant-claimant has further stated in this appeal that he is satisfied with the Award, awarding him compensation at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month from 8-7-1954 to 1-4-1961. It is, therefore, now to be seen whether the appellant-claimant is in law entitled to compensation amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961 up-to-date.

4. Sri S. L. Simha, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-claimant, urged that it is common knowledge that rents of buildings in Bangalore, and in particular in that locality, have gone on rising from year to year and therefore the claim of compensation, at Rs. 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961 put forward by the appellant-claimant is the proper assessment of compensation and he is entitled to it. He further pointed out that even the Bangalore Corporation authorities assessed the annual letting value of the property from 1-4-1961 on the basis of Rs. 1,500/- per month and that would constitute sufficient material for this court to hold that the just and proper assessment of compensation that the claimant is entitled to is Rs. 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961. Sri M. Papanna, Junior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, urged that the appellant-claimant, in law, is not permitted to claim different rates of compensation for different periods and his contention that from 1-4-1961 the compensation should be fixed at Rs. 1,500/-per month as against Rs. 600/- per month is nothing but a claim for enhancement of compensation and that cannot be granted. He pointed out that the learned Arbitrator has dealt with the relevant provisions of the Act while considering this aspect and concluded that enhancement of compensation amount was not permitted to be claimed when once it was fixed by an Arbitrator on a reference under Section 8 of the Act. He nextly pointed out that even though the Bangalore Corporation authorities had assessed the annual letting value at Rs. 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961, the matter was taken up by the appellant-claimant in revision and the tax was reduced on the basis of actual compensation amount that was being received by the appellant-claimant. He on this basis urged that it would not be open to the appellant-claimant to contend that because the Bangalore Corporation authorities had assessed the annual letting value on the basis of Rs. 1,500/- per month, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,500/- per month.

5. Taking up the contention in regard to the question of enhancement of compensation, it is true that the learned Arbitrator, after scrutinising the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, has held that enhancement of compensation, which had been once fixed, is not permitted under the provisions of the Act. But we are unable to see how such a contention arises under the facts and circumstances of this case. It is undisputed that the property in question was requisitioned on 8-7-1954 and the compensation offered was Rs. 500/- per month and further that the appellant-claimant did not accept that amount and contended that he ought to receive Rs. 600/- per month. It is because of this dispute that an Arbitrator was appointed under Section 8 of the Act and the matter dragged on and ultimately the Arbitrator passed the Award in question. Hence it is manifest that a particular amount had never been fixed as just and proper compensation per month by any Arbitrator at an earlier stage. We do not see how the appellant-claimant is precluded from claiming different rates of compensation for different periods particularly when the period that was under consideration was a past one.

6. Section 8(2)(a) of the Act pro-vides that 'the amount of compensation payable for the requisitioning of any property shall consist of a recurring payment, in respect of the period of requisition, of a sum equal to the rent which would have been payable for the use and occupation of the property, if it had been Taken is lease for that period ............' In view of this, we have no hesitation in holding that the law does not preclude the appellant-claimant from claiming different amounts of compensation for different periods when such property is requisitioned under the provisions of the Act. That is what exactly the appellant has done in this case.

Sri Papanna pointed out that when Rs. 500/- was offered to the appellant-claimant as compensation, the appellant-claimant contended that he ought to receive Rs. 600/- per month and it was only when he appeared before the Arbitrator that he put forward his present claim. He, therefore, urged that the claim of the appellant-claimant before the Arbitrator cannot be considered as it is not the same as it was when he disputed the offer of Rs. 500/- per month. Section 8(1)(d) of the Act reads as follows:

Section 8(1) 'Where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act, there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out, that is to say :

x x x x x (2) at the commencement of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, the Central Government and the person to be compensated shall state what in their respective opinion is a fair amount of compensation.'

This provision itself gives a right to the claimant to state before the Arbitrator at the commencement of the proceedings as to what in his opinion is the fair amount of compensation. There is no provision in the Act analogous to Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act precluding a claimant from claiming an amount of compensation higher than what he had claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer. It is under these circumstances that the decision of this court in Union of India v. Narasiyappa, (1970 (1) Mys LJ 319) aptly applies to the facts of this case. In that case also Sections 8 and 11 of the very Act were considered and it was held that Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act which imposes a bar in the way of a claimant asking for anything more than what he had asked for in his statement of claim does not apply to cases falling under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention of Sri Papanna.

7. The question that remains to be considered is whether the claim of the appellant-claimant that he is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.500/- per month from 1-4-1961 upto date is sustainable. The appellant-claimant and his witnesses have sworn that the rents in Bangalore and particularly in that locality have gone on rising year by year. It is to be observed that it is also a well known fact. It is in evidence, and hat part of the evidence is undisputed, that he Bangalore Corporation authorities did assess the annual letting value of the property n question from 1-4-1961 on the basis of Rs. 1,500/- per month. But the tax fixed by the authorities was of course reduced when :he appellant-claimant took up the matter n revision because the actual rental that the building was fetching was not Rs. 1,500/- per month but only Rs. 600/- per month. The fact that the tax assessed by the Corporation authorities on the basis of rental of Rupees 1,500/- per month, was reduced in revision does not mean that the rent of the building in question was something less than Rupees 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961, This material is sufficient to establish that the just and proper assessment of compensation of this building is Rs. 1,500/- per month from 1-4-1961 as claimed by the appellant-claimant. We are of opinion that he is entitled to the same.

8. We, therefore, allow this appeal, setaside the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, in so far as it pertains to the periodfrom 1-4-1961 up-to-date, in case No. LAQ.101 of 1970-71 and fix the amount of compensation payable to the appellant-claimantat Rs. 1,500/- per month for that period. Weconfirm the Award in regard to the periodfrom 8-7-1954 to 1-4-1961. No order as tocosts.

9. Appeal allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //