Summary
Acquisition for an irrigation project submerged part of a company’s trolley line. The Court restored the Reference Court’s compensation for rails and sleepers because the remaining line had become unusable, but upheld rejection of compensation for rolling stock and increased transportation costs. Injury to movable property and injury to earnings required distinct factual assessment. Excess compensation previously withdrawn had to be repaid within four weeks after recalculation.
Issues
- Whether loss of utility of the remaining rails and sleepers attracted compensation for injurious affection.
- Whether the evidence justified compensation for rolling stock and increased transportation costs.
- How compensation for severance, injury to property and injury to earnings differed.
Provisions considered
- Section 23(1), clauses thirdly, fourthly and sixthly, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The three disputed claims fell under clause fourthly. Injury to movable property was distinguished from injury to earnings and from the time-limited diminution of land profits under clause sixthly. (¶¶ 30-35, 42-46, 77-78)
- Section 49, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The owner’s option concerning part of a building and the Government’s option concerning excessive severance claims did not constrain determination here, as neither had been invoked. (¶¶ 33, 36-41)
Held
- Severance under clause thirdly concerns damage from separating acquired from remaining land. Clause fourthly extends to acquisition injuriously affecting other movable or immovable property or earnings. The surviving claims for rails and sleepers, rolling stock and transportation costs belonged to clause fourthly. (¶¶ 30-35, 42-46)
- The High Court wrongly blamed the company for failing to relocate only the submerged section. Submergence rendered the remaining connected line redundant, and relocation was not equivalent to a simple road deviation. The accepted evidence that the rails and sleepers became useless justified restoration of compensation for them. (¶¶ 50-57, 77-79)
- The rejection of the rolling-stock claim was reasonably supported by the evidence, including continued use of an internal trolley line and the valuer’s admissions about the asset register and possible zero book value. The High Court’s conclusion on that separate head was not disturbed. (¶ 58-65)
- Reduced overall profits did not establish that the claimed transportation increase caused that reduction. Evidence did not show that the added costs necessarily had to be absorbed by the company under its customer contracts. Rejection of this earnings claim did not defeat the separately proved injury to rails and sleepers. (¶ 66-78)
- The appeals were partly allowed. Paragraph 79 restored Rs.31,21,860 for rails and sleepers, leaving all other claims undisturbed. The company could retain only the amount due under the modified award and had to refund the excess within four weeks. If its bank guarantee remained alive, it could be enforced only for the disallowed portion after fresh calculation. No costs were ordered. (¶ 79-80)
Result
Appeals partly allowed. Rails-and-sleepers award restored at Rs.31,21,860 as specified in paragraph 79; other claims unchanged. Excess withdrawn compensation repayable within four weeks, with limited enforcement of any subsisting bank guarantee after recalculation. No costs.