Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab Through Land ... vs Karnail Singh And Others on 21 May, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.3470 of 1992 (O&M)
Date of decision:21.05.2013
The State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Urban
Development, Punjab, S.A.S. Nagar.
...Appellant
versus
Karnail Singh and others. ....Respondents
II. RFA No.2865 of 1992 (O&M)
Karnail Singh and others ...Appellants
versus
The State of Punjab through the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban
Development, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellants in RFA No.2865 of 1992 and for the
respondents in RFA No.3470 of 1992.
Mr. Vishal Garg, AAG, Punjab,
for the State.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The appeals by the landowner and the State are on a singular consideration of determination of value of superstructure which was lost through an acquisition of property under the Land Acquisition Act. The notification was issued on 09.02.1976. The Collector had assessed the value of the superstructure at ` 16,040/- and on a claim for enhancement of compensation through a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the RFA No.3470 of 1992 (O&M) -2- landowner examined himself as PW2 and produced documents P1 to P3 which were the plan, estimate and abstract of valuation respectively for the superstructure and also examined the draftsman, who retired as an Architectural Assistant from PWD to support his own report. PW1 gave evidence to the effect that he was an approved draftsman from M.C. Patiala and he had served earlier with PWD (B&R) for 40 years before his retirement as Architectural Assistant. His report spells out the details of the construction with particular reference to the surface area of the plinth, the construction, types of door and windows used and listed out 16 categories for determination of valuation for each category. He had also written in his own hand that the building was 5 years old and he had applied a depreciation at the rate of 1% for a period of 5 years and assessed the net valuation less depreciation at `52,250/-.
2. The respondent on his part did not examine any person. The Reference Court observed that the experts are prone to give exaggerated amount and that 25% discount could be made on the assessment and provided for compensation at `40,000/-.
3. I find the approach of the Reference Court to be illogical. The Court could not have simply made generalization that an expert always is given to exaggeration. There was a duty for the Court to examine the quality of evidence and to find whether he had given appropriate evidence to support the report. In the cross RFA No.3470 of 1992 (O&M) -3- examination, it was elicited that he had brought PWD schedule rates along with him. He admitted that he had not brought amendment to the rates made subsequent to 1962. It was elicited in the cross examination that in the memo of calculation, he had not detailed the quantity of materials used and he has denied the suggestion that he did not prepare the estimate, but he merely signed it at the instance of the claimant. I have already observed that the report contains details of every item of the construction starting from the bricks to mortar and cement used and the valuation on the basis of square foot for each one of items, including wooden articles. If there was any defect in the report relating to the rate, the State with all the records at their command must have been in position to confront the witness of the particular defects in the process and not rest contended with a wild suggestion that he had merely signed the report which was prepared already by the claimant and that the report was not correct. I have no reason to discard an uncontested testimony of the petitioner's witness and I will take the assessment as made by PWs as appropriate and find no reason to modify the same. I take the value therefore as `52,250/- with all the statutory benefits.
4. The appeal by the landowner is allowed and the appeal by the State is dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.05.2013 sanjeev