JUDGMENT
N.C. Jain, J.
1. Chandigarh Administration in pursuance of a notification dated 16.12. 1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act’), acquired land measuring 65 76 acres in village Burail for development of Chandigarh). The appellant before this Court had three poultry sheds on about 2 Kanals of land bearing Khara No.-36/9/2. The land was owned by Jagjit Singh and Mokam Singh, whereas the appellant was only a tenant. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to how much compensation the appellant is entitled to. The Land Acquisition collector by his a warp dated l7.13.1981 assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 19886. The appellant under Section 18 of the Act claimed that she was entitled to a compensation of not less than Rs. 40 000/- for super structures. It was also her case that on account of her closing down the business, she had suffered a loss of business to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- as she was keeping about 1200 birds.
2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :–
1. Whether the compensation assessed, by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the poultry sheds of the claimants existing at the time of acquisition, is insufficient and inadequate ? If so, what should be the reasonable and adequate compensation for the same ?OPP.
2 Whether the acquisition of the poultry shed resulted in change in place of business and loss of business to the claimant petitioner ? If so, to what amount of compensation is she entitled, on account thereof, from the respondent ? OPP.
3. Relief.
3. Both the issues were decided against the appellant. It was held under issue No. 1 that compensation assessed by the land Acquisition Collector was sufficient and adequate Under issue No. 2 it was held that since the appellant did not start the business again, she was not entitled to any compensation for loss due to change of place of business.
4. Mr. Kashmira Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Land Acquisition Court has committed an error in applying the deduction of 5% on account of materials being or Sub-standard He has further argued that the appellant was entitled to loss of business in accordance with the law laid down by J. S. Sekhon, J. in Ramesh Dutt v. State of Punjab, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 359. It has further been argued that the appellant was also entitled to the loss suffered by her on account of wastage of equipments like breeders, feeder, hand pump and electric installations.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. The deduction of 5% for sub-standard material has rightly been applied by the Land Acquisition Court. There is nothing wrong with the departmental instructions upon which reliance has been placed by the District Judge permitting the deduction of 5% on account of the use of sub-standard material The rates given in the common schedule rates being of standard material, some deduction was to be applied and in my considered view, the deduction of 5% cannot be said to be unjustified. The appellant is also not entitled to any compensation on account of loss caused to her due to the wastage of breeders, feeder, handpump and electric installations. Nothing has been stated in the application under Section 18 of the Act either about the existence or loss of the aforesaid items. Not even a word is forthcoming in the statement of Shri R. S. Sodhi, the general attorney of the appellant that the aforesaid equipments had gone waste or that they could not be used on account of their having become infectious as was sought to be contended during the course of arguments before me.
6. Adverting to the loss of business, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S Sekhon in Ramesh Dun’s case (supra), I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to the enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1/- per bird for one month for a period of one year which is the usual time taken for setting up new hen shed. It has clearly come in the statement of Shri R. S. Sodhi that the appellant had 1148 birds in the poultry sheds. Calculating the loss on the basis of the ratio of law laid down in Ramesh Dutt’s case (supra), I hereby determine the compensation for the loss of business for a period of one year at Rs. 13,776/-. The factum of not starting the business again would also not go against the appellant because if her poultry sheds had not been acquired, she would have continued the business for a sufficiently long time and this Court has to assess the amount of compensation without adverting to the fact whether the business was re-started or not. In fact a very plausible explanation has been given by PW-4 Shri R. S. Sodhi that the business could not be started as the appellant was unable to get the land on lease. For all these reason, I hereby determine the amount of compensation for the loss of business at Rs. 13,776/- and this much amount of compensation is accordingly enhanced.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant is also entitled to the giant of statutory benefits of the amended provision of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. She would also have proportionate costs.