RAMESH DUTTversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                                RAMESH DUTT                                      A
                                        v.
                              STATE OF PUNJAB

)c
                               AUGUST 21, 1996

               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                            B

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 23(1), 23(1-A), 23(2) and
     28(As amended by Amendment Act, 68 of 1984.

            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
j
     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
    compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act, the
B   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 Act 68 of
    1984 gr~nting solatium u/s 23(2), additional amount at 12% per annum
    from the date of the notification till date of award or taking possession,
    whichever is earlier under Section 23(1-A) and enhanced interest under        B
    Section 28 proviso clearly has no application. Accordingly, the additional
    amounts granted stand set aside. Instead, the award of the l)istrict Judge
    granting solatium @ 15% on enhanced compensation and interest at 6%
    on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date
    of deposit stands upheld.                                                     C
         The appeal of the State is accordingly allowed. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                    Appeal allowed .




•