TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the claimant, in proceedings for compensation for requisitioned property, could lawfully claim different rates for different periods instead of being confined to the rate initially asserted. (ii) Whether the evidence justified fixation of compensation at Rs. 1,500 per month from 1-4-1961.
Issue (i): Whether the claimant, in proceedings for compensation for requisitioned property, could lawfully claim different rates for different periods instead of being confined to the rate initially asserted.
Analysis: The scheme of Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 requires compensation to be determined as a recurring payment equal to the rent that would have been payable for use and occupation during the period of requisition. The Act permits both sides to state, at the commencement of proceedings before the Arbitrator, what in their opinion is a fair amount of compensation. Unlike the Land Acquisition Act, the Act does not impose a bar preventing the claimant from claiming more than what was earlier asserted. The claimant was therefore not precluded from seeking a higher rate for a later period where the requisition continued and the question related to past compensation.
Conclusion: The claimant was entitled in law to claim different rates of compensation for different periods.
Issue (ii): Whether the evidence justified fixation of compensation at Rs. 1,500 per month from 1-4-1961.
Analysis: The evidence showed that rents in Bangalore, particularly in the locality concerned, had risen over time. It was also undisputed that the municipal authorities had assessed the annual letting value of the property on the basis of Rs. 1,500 per month from 1-4-1961. The fact that the assessment was later reduced in revision did not negate the evidentiary value of that valuation for determining the reasonable rental basis. On the materials available, the higher figure represented the just and proper compensation for the continued requisition from that date.
Conclusion: Compensation at Rs. 1,500 per month from 1-4-1961 was justified.
Final Conclusion: The award was modified by enhancing compensation for the later period to Rs. 1,500 per month while affirming the earlier rate, and the appeal succeeded to that extent.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, compensation for requisitioned property is a recurring rental equivalent that may be assessed for different periods on the basis of fair rent evidence, without any statutory bar against a revised claim for a later period.
TaxTMI 
