Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Determination of fair compensation for compulsory requisitioning of premises, including whether the assessment should account for comparable rents, potential value of the property, and compensation for the use of the lift.
Analysis: Compensation under section 19 of the Defence of India Act was to be assessed on principles analogous to section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The proper approach was to consider the rent prevailing for similar premises and to take into account the special advantages and potentialities of the requisitioned building on the materials available. The High Court was justified in relying on comparable premises and in rejecting an unsupported expert opinion, but it erred in excluding the additional amount for potential value without adequate reason. The claim for the lift was also supported by the circumstances that Government departments were using it and the requisition was for an indefinite period.
Conclusion: The compensation was enhanced to Rs. 3,200 per mensem, with proportionate costs, and the appellant succeeded in part.
Ratio Decidendi: In fixing compensation for requisitioned property, the authority must assess fair rent on the basis of comparable premises and may include the property's special adaptability and potential value, as well as ancillary user-related compensation, on the materials available.