1000/ should be paid to the respondents.
On reference, the District judge of Hazaribagh heard the matter.
When this plea was raised before the High Court, the appellants, the State of Bihar and the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, companytended that it was number open to the respondents to claim a declaration for the acquisition of other properties in their appeal, because the said appeal arose out of a reference under s. 18 of the Act and a plea like the one raised by the respondents which companyld be made under s. 49 of the Act, was foreign to the present enquiry.
The Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh then proceeded to make the reference as claimed by the respondents.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1960 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original decree No.
Besides, they urged that the monthly rent of Rs.
18 in the district of Hazaribagh.
The respondents owned an area of 0.12 acre of land in village Bermo No.
In their appeal, the only ground which they urged was that the rope way having companypletely spoiled the main building, the Land Acquisition Officer companyld number acquire the out houses without acquiring the main building.
It was also companytended that this point had number been taken by the respondents either before the Land Acquisition Officer or before the District judge.
It appears that before the District judge, Kundan Singh, respondent No.
These arguments were rejected by the High Court and a direction has been issued by the High Court calling upon the Land Acquisition Officer to takeover the remaining area and the building and assess the companypensation thereon in due companyrse according to law.
Sen, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
In other words, one of the grounds raised by the respondents in their petition was referrable to s. 23 3 of the Act.
1 of 1894 hereinafter called the Act .
219 of 1962.
One of the grounds taken by the respondents in para I d of their petition for reference was that the other lands and buildings companytiguous to the land and building acquired which belonged to them had number been acquired, and in companysequence, they had to suffer a huge loss the rope line passes close to the rest of the property, and so, it companyld number be used for fear of its being dangerous for human habitation.
160/ which they were receiving from the tenants in respect of the said principal building would also be lost and they were entitled to adequate companypensation on that account.
In his letter of reference, he stated that the respondents were claiming additional companypensation on the ground that the other lands and buildings companytiguous to the land and building acquired which they owned had number been acquired and thereby they had to suffer a huge loss.
This land was required for the companystruction of Aerial Rope way for Bokaro Thermal Power Plant, and so, in order to acquire the said land, a declaration under s. 4 of the Act was made on August 9, 1952.
4 451/5/6 which had been determined as the amount of companypensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, Rs.
21,765/8/ which they had spent on the companystruction of the principal building.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
7 of 1955.
In his opinion, the amounts determined by the Acquisition Officer for the property actually acquired was quite appropriate and all that was needed to be done was to award an additional amount of Rs.
The numberification showed that the Government thought it necessary, to acquire a space of 50 fit in width for the electric wire to run over and this included a portion of open space as also the out houses of the respondents.
The property of the respondents which stands on this plot companysists of two buildings, one is the main structure and the other is made up of out houses together with an open space of land in front of these structures.
On this basis, the respondents alleged that they were entitled to recover as companypensation amount Rs.
April 25.
R. L. Iyengar, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the respondents.
1,000/ on the ground that the unacquired property was adversely affected by the acquisition in question.
4,4511516 according to him, the said amount represented a fair and reasonable companypensation for the land together with the out houses under acquisition.
The respondents were number satisfied with this award, and so, they applied for reference under s. 18 of the Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 No.
The learned District judge companysidered the point raised by the respondents and held that since only a narrow strip of land had been left in front of the larger building, it had affected the utility of the said building and the other unacquired land of the respondents, and so, he directed that in addition to the amount of Rs.
The respondents then preferred an appeal before the High Court of Patna under s. 54 of the Act.
1, gave evidence and stated that on October 22, 1952, he had put in an application that the other quarters belonging to him which had number been acquired should also be acquired, because the said quarters were companytiguous to the land acquired and had become useless to the respondents.
Under the proceedings taken under the relevant provisions of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the companypensation to be paid to the respondents at Rs.
Accordingly, they claimed a declaration that the Land Acquisition Officer should acquire the main building along with the other properties under acqiuisition.
