JASP AL SINGH AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 18-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JASP AL SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 18, 1996 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
LandAcquisitionAct, 1894: Section 23(1) Clause Fourthly and Fifthly. 
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Principle for detennination of-Ac-
C quisition of large track of land for extension of cantonm.ent 
in Amrit-
sal"-Compensation for loss of profits to appellant's poultry-The mere fact~ 
that the claimant was displaced on account of acquisition and could not 
remscitate himself by establishing a poultry f ann business anywhere, cannot 
be a ground under clause fourthly of Section 23(1) to detennine the compen-
sation on that basis-His loss of earnings till date of resettlement should not 
D be detennined in that behalf-Clause fifthly is only consequence of acquisi-
tion of the land by the Collector-Transport charges incurred for the displace-
ment and canying the material due to displacement are required to be 
awarded, in addition to the compensation detennined-But the mere fact that 
the claimant happened to secure alternative land at afar off place and that 
E too said to be an insecure place, cannot be a ground to contend that he is 
also entitled to compensation under clause fifthly due to change of business 
and setting up of the business in an insecure place. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1741 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.8~ of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in L.P. A. No. 1056 of 1985. 
Raju Ramachandran and Sudarsh Menon for the Appellants. 
G 
Mrs. Shashi Kiran for C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
' 
' 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order, 
made on November 15, 1985 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dis-
H missing in limine LP A No. 1356 by confirming the judgment of the learned 
368 
JASPALSINGHv. U.O.I. 
369 
single Judge dated November 9, 1979 in RFA No. 779/75. 
A 
-
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 
of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was published on July 11, 1977 acquiring a 
large track of land including the land in question for extension of ·the 
cantonment in Amritsar. The award under Section 11 was made and on B 
reference under Section 18 of the Act came to be filed in the civil Court 
on June 15, 1983 which determined the compensation for loss of profits to 
the appellant's poultry at Rs. 6,54,637. Since the Assistant Director of 
Poultry Farm had notified to the Land acquisition Officer that the rate of 
return per bird was at Rs. 1.38 per month and there were 2500 birds in the 
poultry farm, the Additional District Judge applying 15 years' multiplier, c 
came to determine the above amount. In writ petition, the learned single 
Judge of the High Court reversed the said finding and held that the 
appellant at best would be entitled to Rs. 31,050 for loss of business for a 
reasonable period of 5 and 6 months. That was confirmed by the Division 
Bench. Thus this appeal by special leave. This appeal, on behalf of the D 
respondent, seems to have been filed due to which we need not go into 
merits to the extent upheld by the High Court. 
Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior COlll).sel appearing for the 
____,_ 
appellant, contends that under clause fourthly of sub-section (1) of Section 
E 
23 of the Act, if the damage sustained by the appellant, at the time of the 
Collector' taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition is such 
as is injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any 
other manner or his earnings, the appellant is entitled to the compensation. 
Equally, compensation is claimed under clause fifthly, since as a result of 
the acquisition, he was made to travel 5 Kms. from the border of the State F 
to Pakistan and could secure the lanp in an insecure place as a result of 
the search and held to shift his business to other place. Taking all these 
factors into consideration, the amount awarded in the award by the civil 
Court cannot be said to be unjustifiable or arbitrary warranting inter-
-
ference by the High Court. We find no force in the contention. 
G 
Sub-section (1) of Section 23 itself envisages that in determining the 
'. 
amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, 
the Court shall take into consideration the loss of earnings as a component 
for the acquisition of the property. The mere fact that the claimant was 
displaced on account of acq

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.