Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Charan Dass Chauhan vs The Nathpa Jhakri Hydel Proj.Corp.. on 24 February, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2127/2012
CHARAN DASS CHAUHAN APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE NATHPA JHAKRI HYDEL PROJ.CORP.& ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 24/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Appellant(s) Mr. J.S. Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Balraj Dewan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. B. K. Satija, Adv.[N/P]
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2016.02.26 16:28:49 IST Reason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2127/2012 CHARAN DASS CHAUHAN ...APPELLANT VERSUS THE NATHPA JHAKRI HYDEL PROJECT CORPORATION & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 20th April, 2010 of the High Court of Shimla by which the compensation for the building of the land that was acquired along with the land of which the appellant is the owner has been reduced by the High Court. The Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the value of the building and granted compensation to the appellant therefor at Rs.3,58,372/-. The appellant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Reference Court enhanced the 2 compensation for the building to Rs.5,96,600/-. The High Court, in appeal, by the respondent reduced the amount to what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. Rs.3,58,372/-.
2. Aggrieved this appeal has been filed.
3. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court indicates that the principal ground/basis on which the High Court had thought it fit to reduce the amount of compensation is that P.W. 5 – Lalit Kumar who deposed with regard to value of the building was not competent to do so. We have taken note of the fact that P.W. 5 – Lalit Kumar is a qualified Engineer and while he may not be competent to depose on the value of the land he would certainly be competent to depose on the value of the building. As we are unable to accept the 3 principal basis on which the High Court had thought it proper to reduce the compensation, we conclude that the reduction made by the High Court is not justified in law and that the appellant is entitled to compensation for the building at Rs.5,96,600/- awarded by the learned Reference Court.
4. Consequently, we allow the appeal; set aside the order of the High Court and hold the appellant to be entitled to compensation for the building at Rs.5,96,600/- along with all consequential and statutory benefits as admissible in law.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 24, 2016