RAMESH DUTT versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 21-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

)c 
j 
RAMESH DUTT 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
AUGUST 21, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 23(1), 23(1-A), 23(2) and 
28(As amended by Amendment Act, 68 of 1984. 
A 
B 
Land Acquisiti01~etennination of compensation-Acquisition of C 
large extent of land-Claim for loss of business of Poultry f ann-Landowner 
remained in illegal possession and carried on the business-Not suffering any 
loss in earnings-Held not entitled to compensation on account of loss of 
business-Held High Court erred in directing compensation for one year for 
dislocation of claimants business-The State having not questioned this 
amount in appeal finding of High Court not disturbed-Landowner held not D 
entitled to the benefits of provisions under the amended Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal no. 4148 of 
1989 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.88 of the Punjab & E 
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 1005 or 1979. 
K.K. Mohan for the Appellant. 
H.S. Munjra, for Manoj Swarup for the Respondent. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Notificat.ion under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(for short, the "Act") was published on October 16, 1970 acquiring a large 
extent of land admeasuring 180 acres in revenue estate of Bhatinda. The G 
award was made under Section 11 on March 24, 1978. The appellant 
claimed compensation for the land and also for loss of business of poultry 
farm run in the land. The compensation @ Rs. 10 per sq. yd. was awarded 
by the Additional District Judge which was affirmed by the High Court as 
enhancement thereof was not pressed. Thus, as far as the quantum of 
compensation for the land is concerned, the determination at market value H 
17 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A of Rs. 10 per sq. yd. has become final. 
The only question in the appeal of the claimant is : whether the 
claimant would be entitled to compensation for loss of business? As per 
,,.
clause fourthly of Section 23(1) of the Act, in determining the amount of 
B 
compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act, the 
Court shall also take into col\sideration the damages! if any sustained by 
the person interested at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the 
land for loss of his earnings. The yardstick, therefore, is the compensation 
for the loss of business as on the date of taking possession. It is seen, as 
found by the reference Court, that the appellant remained in possession 
c upto AprH 26, 1977 and continued his business. It was admitted in the 
cross-examination by the appellant that he was disposing of the birds in 
poultry farm even at the time of his adducing the evidence. Accordingly, 
the District Judge recorded the finding thus : 
"In cross-examination he admitted that he started disposing of 
D 
the birds in the Poultry Farm and that the acquisition of Poultry 
Farm could not have made any difference for the disposal of the 
\ 
broilers, which were otherwise to be disposed off. According to 
him, he disposed them of in routine business. Besides this, khe 
produced on record Exh. PX, copy of the judgment of Shri Saranjit 
E 
Singh Greal, District Judge. Roop Nagar, dated 26.4.1977, Exh. P 
copy of the Judgment dated 22.9.1975 passed by Shri Shamshad 
AH Khan District Judge, Ropar. These copies of the judgments 
were produced with view to prove that he is entitled to compen-
sation on account of loss of business." 
F 
Having illegally remained in possession and carried on the business 
he did not suffer any loss in earnings. On the other hand, he had reaped 
the benefits. So he is not entitled to get further compensation. 
The High Court obviously was in error in directing payment of 
compensilt:ion for one year for the dislocation of his business at the rate of 
.... 
G Re. 1 for one month per bird for 12,000 birds. However, since the State 
~ 
has not questioned this amount in this appeal and since the connected 
appeal is C"onfined only to the additional benefits under the Amendment 
Act 68 of 1984, we need not disturb the findings of the learned Single Judge 
in awarding compensation at that rate, though we find it illegal. The appeal 
H of the claimant, therefore, merits on further consideration. It is accordingly 
• 
RAMESHDUTI v. STAIB 
19 
dismissed. No costs. 
A 
As far as the State appeal is concerned, in view of the fact that the 
award of the Collector is of March 24, 1978, the Amendment

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