Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1298 (PNJ)

Lt. Col. Jagir Singh v. Union of India

2003-09-16

M.M.KUMAR

body2003
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the Act) challenges judgment dated 13.2.1986 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bhatinda while disposing of the application filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Act. Along with the land, tube-well of the claimant-appellant was also acquired and the dispute which remains to be decided in the instant appeal is with regard to the market value of the tube-well. The Collector has awarded a sum of Rs. 23,723/- vide his award. 2. Claimant-appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Act and claimed enhancement to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- plus statutory solatium and interest. While deciding the application, the learned Addl. District Judge Framed, the following issues : "1. Whether the claimant has made any objection under Section 9 before the Land Acquisition Collector, if not, its effect ? OPR. 2. What was the market value of the tube-well and superstructure at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act ? OPA. 3. Relief." 3. On issue No. 1, it was found that the respondent-department has failed to prove the service of notice under Section 9 on the claimant-appellant. As the onus was on the respondent-department, the issue was decided against it. 4. On the question of market value of the tube-well and the super-structures at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 10.5.1979, the ld. Addl. District Judge discarded the report submitted by the claimant-appellant Shri H.S. Virdee AW 1. The basic reasons for discarding the report of Shri Virdee which weighed with the learned Addl. District Judge are : a) that his salary was withheld by the Government which shows that something wrong was done by him. Addl. District Judge discarded the report submitted by the claimant-appellant Shri H.S. Virdee AW 1. The basic reasons for discarding the report of Shri Virdee which weighed with the learned Addl. District Judge are : a) that his salary was withheld by the Government which shows that something wrong was done by him. Therefore, no reliance was to be placed on the report of such an expert whose integrity was doubtful; b) Shri H.S. Virdee has stated that there was no identification mark on the tube-well and he could not identify the same ; c) It is also stated by Shri H.S. Virdee that estimation, referred to him, was supplied to him by the clerk of the counsel which has been taken to mean that he gave more value of the tube-well and did not give any independent opinion; and d) He has not been considered to be an expert because he did not mention his qualification and experience. However, Addl. District Judge while following the method of assessment in the case of buildings in rural areas preferred that method which has been adopted in the report submitted by Shri Virdee. The views of the Addl. District Judge in this regard reads as under : "It needs hardly be emphasised that while assessing the valuation of a building or a structure for the purpose of making an estimate of the amount of compensation which has to be paid to the owner thereof, many factors including the situation thereof, the locality in which it is situated for the purpose for which it was being used at the time of acquisition, and its nearness to the national or some important highways are to be taken into consideration, in addition to what actually might have been spent thereof initially, and actually and obviously such a job would necessarily involve a quite degree of expertise and can be performed by a well qualified person who is conversant with such a thing and that too either by taking actual measurements or on the basis of the plinth area system as has been done in the present case also. Under the latter method what is done is, that the approximate costs of construction per square feet of the buildings situated in the neighbourhood of the one in respect whereof the compensation is to be paid, is assessed and then on the basis thereof the requisite calculations are made, of course with marginal adjustments here and there, whereas in the other system each and every part of the structure is inspected and the valuation thereof is calculated after taking actual measurements in accordance with the specifications laid down by the Govt. Now the question arises as to which of these two methods is more suitable for assessing the compensation amount in cases of rural areas, because it would be on the decision of this thing only, that it would be determined. It is a matter of common knowledge, that in villages where the population comprises mostly of rustic and illiterate people, structures and houses are raised to cater to their own individual needs, which differ from man to man depending on their financial status, and is a majority of cases, the houses are found to have been built up with very simple and locally made material and, therefore, it would be very difficult to find many points of similarity among them and this being so the method of making calculations on the basis of plinth area basis, which as pointed out above is done by a comparison of similarly situated buildings, and built up of almost the same type of buildings material would not be a very correct thing to do. Therefore, it follows that the right thing to do would be to take the actual measurements of each and every structure as has been done by Mr. Virdee in this case. It is stated by possible at Bhatinda as vertical excavation is possible upto 5 meters depth and he has not given any costs for the wet well sinking. No doubt the report given by Shri Virdee is a detailed estimate, but cannot be relied upon as discussed above. Moreover, Shri Virdee assessed much more value of the tube-well that is about double than the value assessed by the Govt. Engineer. When two engineers give reports there can be minor difference in the assessment made by them and not difference of more than double of the amount. Sh. Moreover, Shri Virdee assessed much more value of the tube-well that is about double than the value assessed by the Govt. Engineer. When two engineers give reports there can be minor difference in the assessment made by them and not difference of more than double of the amount. Sh. K.G. Gondhara admitted that vertical excavation, so the claimant is entitled to get some enhancement in compensation. The claimant will get 30% solatium and 12 more enhancement as per the new amendment. So, in these circumstances I think it will be justified the claimant if he is given 10 percent enhancement of the difference of Rs. 23,323/- i.e. Rs. 2332/-. So in all the claimants would get 52% increase." 5. Shri M.L. Sarin, learned counsel has argued that report of Shri Virdee which is detailed one could not have been discarded by the learned lower Appellate Court merely because his salary was withheld or that he has not disclosed his qualifications. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the report of Shri Virdee has been the subject matter of consideration of this Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Bachan Singh, 1989(2) RLR 140 and the same was duly accepted by this Court in respect of the same acquisition. Learned counsel has pointed out that there is no valid reason for the ld. Addl. District Judge to discard the report merely on the ground that there is tendency to exaggerate the claim by the expert in favour of the party who had produced him. Learned counsel has also brought to my notice that similar matter has been decided by this Court in RFA No. 1785 of 1986, Joginder Singh v. UOI decided on 13.8.2003. 6. None has appeared to oppose the claim made by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant. 7. After hearing the learned counsel, I find that there is merit in his submission. The report made by Shri Virdee has been accepted by this Court in Bachan Singhs case (supra) as well as in Joginder Singhs case (supra). Allowing the appeal in Joginder Singhs case (supra), this Court observed as under : "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. Allowing the appeal in Joginder Singhs case (supra), this Court observed as under : "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. Virdee. In fact, the learned Additional District 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 respondents 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 Singhs case (supra), the report of Shri H.S. Virdee had been accepted in toto. In fact, some cuts imposed, by 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. 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 available to the claimants would be Rs. 17,320/- over and above the market value as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector. Besides this, the claimants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits." 8. I am further of the view that the method adopted by Shri Viridee which constitute the basis of report has been approved by the ld. Addl. District Judge as is clear from the extracted portion of his judgment. The Supreme Court in the case of Spl. Land Acquisition Officer v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari, 1995 Supp. I am further of the view that the method adopted by Shri Viridee which constitute the basis of report has been approved by the ld. Addl. District Judge as is clear from the extracted portion of his judgment. The Supreme Court in the case of Spl. Land Acquisition Officer v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 168 has observed that when a report of expert is produced by the claimant before the Court disclosing the market value of the acquired land, the Court may choose to act upon the same for determination of the amount of compensation payable to the claimant if the data or the material on the basis of which report has been prepared is found to be authentic and the method of valuation adopted therein is correct. The Addl. District Judge has found that the report is detailed and reasoned one. It has also been found that the method adopted by Shri Virdee is the correct method. Therefore, discarding the report merely on the ground non-disclosure of the qualification and withholding of his salary would to constitute valid basis to conclude that his report is tainted. No evidence has been produced by the department- respondent to show that the salary of the expert was withheld on account of some mis-conduct committed by him or he has ever earned a entry that his integrity was doubtful. Moreover, in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, 2003(3) SCC 583 it has been observed that experts evidence cannot be discarded merely because there are some adverse remarks against the expert. It has been further observed that if after careful analysis of his evidence it is found that the report given by the expert is fair in material particulars then the same should be accepted. In that case, the court was examining the report of handwriting expert which was discarded by the High Court on the ground of some adverse comments against an expert. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal succeeds and it is held that the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to enhancement of Rs. 17,320/- over and above the assessment made by the Collector. He shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits. The claimant-appellant shall also be entitled to costs. Appeal allowed.