RFA No.3012 of 1993 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Cross Objection No.32-CI of 2009
And RFA No.3012 of 1993
Date of decision: 14.07.2009
Union of India ...Appellants
Versus
Inder Singh and Anr. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate,
for the respondents/X-Objectors
---
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of RFA No. 3012 of 1993 titled Union
of India Vs. Inder Singh & Anr. and X-Objection No.32-CI of 2009.
Punjab Government vide Notification No.8672-8JJ-
77/PB/5348/ACQ/25212 dated 11.7.1977 published in the Punjab
Government Gazette and declaration made under section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act (for short the Act) published by Notification No.4042-
RFA No.3012 of 1993 2
5Judl./80-PB/5348/ACQ/14608 dated 19.7.1980 acquired land measuring
11513 kanals along with structures standing thereon in village Kathania
Tehsil and District Amritsar at public expenses.
The compensation fixed for the acquired land has attained
finality up to Hon’ble Supreme Court and is, therefore, not the subject-
matter of this appeal.
Vide award No.4, Land Acquisition Collector was pleased to
assess the market value of acquired structure at Rs.52.786/-. This valuation
was assessed by the Collector in view of the evidence led by the State as
well as the appellant before the Land Acquisition Collector. The appellant
claimed a sum of Rs.1,14,750/- for the structure by way of reference under
section 18 of the Act.
The claim was contested by the State.
The respondent-land owners relied upon Ex.P.1 in support of
claim of Rs.1,14,750/- whereas State relied upon Ex.R.1, PWD valuation
report assessing the value at Rs.45,510/-.
Learned reference court held that in some cases the Special
Land Acquisition Collector enhanced the value of structure to the extent of
50 per cent of the difference between the value assessed by PWD authorities
and the private valuer and passed award No.5.
Appeal filed against award No.5 was dismissed by this court
and challenge to the judgment of this court failed in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The order thus attained finality.
Learned reference court, therefore, by relying upon said
RFA No.3012 of 1993 3
principle, ordered the enhancement of the market value by 50% of
difference of the market value i.e. one relied upon by the State and one by
the valuer.
The award passed was challenged in this court by the appellant
Union of India. The appeals filed by Union of India were dismissed one
such appeal being No.RFA No.1144 of 1993. This appeal also deserves to
be dismissed for the reasons recorded in RFA No.1144 of 1993.
Dismissed.
Cross Objection No.32-CI of 2009
Cross Objectors have sought enhancement of compensation
for structure, as also compensation for trees standing on the land.
Learned counsel for the cross objectors contends that the
factum of trees on the acquired land was admitted, having been not
challenged in cross-examination, therefore, the reference court erred in law
in not granting any compensation for the trees.
This plea of the learned counsel for the cross-objectors cannot
be accepted. Admittedly, except for the bald statement, no particulars with
regard to age and type of trees were given nor any evidence was led to
show the value of alleged trees. The learned reference court, therefore, was
justified in rejecting the claim of compensation for trees for lack of any
evidence.
Learned counsel for the cross objectors also challenged the
grant of compensation for structure by adopting the principle of
enhancement by 50 per cent of the difference of valuation report submitted
RFA No.3012 of 1993 4
by PWD and one produced by the appellant.
The contention of the learned counsel for the objectors is that
valuation report produced by the State was not accepted by the Land
Acquisition Collector as the Government Valuer assessed the value of
structure at Rs.52,786/- but without assigning any reason giving particular
therefor. The contention of the learned counsel for the objector is that the
valuation report Ex.R.1 relied upon by the appellant Union of India was
cryptique and lacked material particulars, therefore, rightly rejected by the
learned reference court.
Learned reference court did not accept the report of the
Department but ignored the report produced by the Cross Objector as Ex.P.1
by adopting the principle of enhancement by 50 per cent of the difference
between two reports. This principle though under given circumstances can
be accepted but cannot have universal application. Report Ex.P.1 gave the
material details of the construction as also the quality of the construction.
Rates were fixed by adopting well established principle. Principle of
depreciation was also applied and thereafter valuation of the structure was
assessed at Rs.1,14,750/- (Rupees one lac fourteen thousand seven hundred
and fifty only).
In support of the contention raised the learned counsel for the
cross objectors has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case
of Jaswinder Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India 2004 (1) RCR (Civil)
384, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under:
“13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
RFA No.3012 of 1993 5submissions of the learned counsel. I find that the present
appeal must succeed. A perusal of the judgment of the learned
Additional District Judge makes it absolutely clear that no
reasons had been given by him to reject the report of Shri
H.S.Virdee. Merely, because the other expert produced by the
acquiring authorities, namely, Shri K.S.Gondhara, RW 1, had
submitted a report showing less valuation of the super-
structures would by itself be no ground to reject the report of
Shri H.S.Virdi. In fact, the learned Additional Judge had
himself observed that the report of Shri H.S.Virdee was
detailed one and contained reasons. After having made those
observations, it was not open to him to reject the aforesaid
report merely because the other expert had given a lesser
valuation. In fact, the respondent had failed to lead any
evidence or to show any defect in the report of Shri H.S.Virdee.
Another fact which has already been noticed by me is that in
Bachan Singh’s case (supra), the report of H.S.Virdee had been
accepted in to to. In fact, some cuts imposed, but the learned
Additional District Judge in the aforesaid case, on the valuation
report submitted by Shri H.S.Virdee were held unsustainable by
this Court.
14. As such, the present appeal is allowed. The claimants
would be entitled to get the amount of compensation as
assessed by Shri H.S.Virdee. In this manner, the enhancement
RFA No.3012 of 1993 6available to the claimants would be Rs.40,278/- over and above
the market value as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition
Collectors. Besides this, the claimants shall also be entitled to
the statutory benefits. The appellant shall also be entitled to
costs.”.
There is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel
for the cross-objectors.
It may be noticed that Ram Lubhaya Architect who prepared
report Ex.P.1 appeared in the witness box as PW 1 and proved his report
Ex.P.1 along with site plan Ex.P.2. In the cross examination except for the
suggestion that the valuation report is false, there was no suggestion or
challenge to method adopted.
In view of the law laid down by this court in Jaswinder Singh
& Anr. Vs. Union of India (supra) it has to be held that the cross
objectors were entitled to compensation for superstructure at the rate of
Rs.1,14,750/-. The cross objection, therefore, is allowed. The value of
structure is enhanced to Rs.1,14,750/-. Cross objectors shall also be entitled
to statutory solatium and other statutory benefits on the enhanced
compensation so assessed.
For the reasons stated, the RFA No.3012 of 1993 is dismissed,
whereas Cross Objection No.32-CI of 2009 stands allowed but with no
order as to costs.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
July 14, 2009
rp