JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by claimants against the ‘award’ of the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,42,948/- that has been awarded for the super structure on the land that has been acquired, has been challenged as being inadequate.
2. The land belonging to the appellant was notified for acquisition Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) on 17th February, 1975. On 29th March, 1976, Collector gave his award with regard to the land that had been acquired. As the claimants/appellants claimed that there were super structures on the land in question, the Collector went into the matter and vide a supplementary award dated 29th September, 1976 found that an amount of Rs. 19,597/-was to be paid for the brick kiln, Rs. 18,623/- for the labour huts and Rs. 7,695/- for the office and tubewell building. In addition to these amounts, the Collector also awarded the other statutory amounts available to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the appellants approached the Additional District Judge, Faridkot in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming that the award given by the Collector was wholly inadequate and they were liable to be paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for brick kiln, and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the firing of the brick kiln at the time of its installation, a sum of Rs. 35,000/- for the Tubewell, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the tubewell and office building. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the labour huts and about Rs. 26,500/- on account of the lease money paid to one Bikkar Singh in addition for digging of brick earth from his land. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also claimed on account of loss of business.
3. In the reply in response to a notice under Section 18 of the Act State states while admitting the factum of acquisition and that the super-structures on the land pleaded that the compensation that had been awarded by the Collector was adequate and no further enhancement was called for. The Additional District Judge on the basis of pleadings before him framed the following issues :-
(1) What was the market value of the acquired property at the time of its acquisition? OPA
(2) To what amount, if, any, are the claimants entitled to recover? OPA.
(3) Relief:
4. The claimants to prove their case examined Amarjit Aggarwal as AW1, who had proved the reports Ex.A1 and A2 with regard to the value of the brick kiln, Kartar Singh and Mohan Lal as AW-2 and AW-3 respectively to prove the receipt Ex. A4 said to have been executed by Bikkar Singh vide which he had accepted an amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the appellants so that the brick-earth could be dug out from his land, Sham Lal and Vidya Sagar as AW-5 and AW-6 respectively – the brick kiln owners who deposed as to the income that had been derived from the brick-kiln and that the price of coal in the year 1974-75 was Rs. 600/650 per tonne and the claimant Jagan Nath Aggarwal who examined himself as AW-7 deposed as to the amount that had been spent while setting up the brick-kiln and that he had derived an income of Rs. 64,000/- from the brick-kiln during the year in which the acquisition had been made. The Court came to the conclusion that the reports Exs. A-1 and A-2 which had been prepared in the year 1986 by Amarjit Aggarwal-AW-1 could not be relied upon for determining compensation with respect to the land that had been acquired in the year 1974, whereas the report is said to have been recorded in the year 1986; that the compensation awarded for the brick-kiln was, however, inadequate and the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 92,948/- on account of its value that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was due to the claimants on account of loss of business as it was his own case in evidence that he had been earning of about Rs. 60,000/- therefrom that the claim with regard to the money of Bikkar Singh could not be granted as the receipt Ex. A-4 appeared to be a created document and having held as above, enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 45,915/- which had been awarded by the Collector, to Rs. 1,42,948/-. Still dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the claimants have come to this Court by way of the present appeal.
5. Mr. Sarwan Singh, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants has urged that the amount awarded by the Collector as compensation for the Labour huts was wholly inadequate and did not reflect the correct position. In this connection, he has relied upon the evidence of Amarjit Aggarwal-AW-1 and Jagan Nath Aggarwal AW-7 the claimants.
6. I have gone through the statement of both these witnesses and find that nothing can be spelt out therein that the claimants are entitled to any further sum, Amarjit Aggarwal-AW1 who is stated to be an Engineer and a duly qualified person to appraise the value of the property admitted in his cross-examination that when he had visited the site in question for the purpose of preparing his reports Exs. A-1 and A-2 in the year 1988, there was no trace of the brick-kiln or the huts. I, therefore, fail to understand as to how this witness would in his reports Exs. A-1 and A-2 determine the costs of the bhatta, Labour huts and the office of the tubewell structures. If these reports arc ignored from consideration, the Court is left only with the self serving statement of AW-7 Jagan Nath Aggarwal with regard to the value of the property. I am of the opinion that nothing can be spelt out from his evidence that which would entitle him to any further sum as compensation for the bhatta.
7. Mr. Sarwan Singh has further argued that the labour huts, as well as the tubewell and the office, however, had been undervalued and a higher compensation ought to have been awarded for these.
8. For the reasons recorded in the earlier paragraph, I am of the opinion that no further enhancement is called for with respect to these as well.
9. Mr. Sarwan Singh has then argued that a higher sum ought to have been awarded to the claimants on account of the firing of the bhatta constructed in the year 1958 and for this argument he has placed reliance on the statement of AW-6 Vidya Sagar as also the report Ex. A-2.
10. As against this, Mr. H.S. Sran, the learned A.A.G., Punjab has argued that in the award, the Additional District Judge has given a categorical finding that no such claim had been made before the Collector and there was no evidence to indicate as to the quantity or the value of the coal used, nothing was payable on this score as well.
11. Mr. Sarwan Singh has also argued that the Additional District Judge went wrong in not awarding compensation for the lease money that had been paid to Bikkar. There is no merit in this assertion. In addition to the fact, that Bikkar Singh who ought to have appeared to depose with regard to this point, has not done so, the receipt Ex.A4 which has been proved by the two attesting witnesses is a suspicious documents, yet, there is also another factor which points out that no such transaction had taken place. The Additional District Judge in his award has clearly stated that no such claim had been made before the Collector and as such, it appears that having become wiser after the award, the claims had been made for the first time at the time of reference under Section 18 of the Act. To my mind, therefore, no further sum is due under this head as well.
12. Mr. Sarwan Singh has finally urged that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- awarded as compensation on account of loss of business was inadequate and the loss of business had to be determined at Rs. 50,000/- per year for four years as held by this Court in Raghbir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1974 P and H 321.
13. I have gone through the judgment with the help of the learned counsel for the parties and find that as a matter of fact this judgment goes against the interests of the claimants. In this case, the Court came to the conclusion that compensation for loss of business was to be paid for a period of one year. Moreover, this matter had not been urged before the District Judge in the reference under Section 18 of the Act, and no such argument is now available before me. There is, accordingly, no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.