RFA No. 937 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 937 of 1991 Date of decision 3 .5.2010. Basant Kaur (deceased) through her legal representative-Gurnam Kaur ...... Appellant. versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. O.P.Nagpal Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Addl.AG, Punjab. K.C.PURI. J. This is an appeal directed by the claimant against the Award dated 5.1.1990 passed by Shri S.S.Kanwal, the then learned additional District Judge, Patiala vide which the compensation awarded to the claimant in respect of her house was assessed to be Rs.11,250/-. The house of the appellant was acquired for public purposes and the amount of compensation assessed but the claimant was not satisfied with the amount of the compensation and consequently made reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the Act). It is alleged that petitioner is the owner of the house and value of the said house is not less than RFA No. 937 of 1991 2 Rs.60,000/-. Same is situated within the revenue limits of village Alipur Arian. The petitioner has not accepted the Award and has objected the same. The compensation assessed in respect of the house of the petitioner is much low and inadequate. The covered area has not been properly measured. There is colony around the house and house is situated on the road. That near the house in dispute residential houses exist. The house in question is situated near Rajpura - Patiala road near Railway Station, near New Grain Market. In reply the application was resisted and it has been pleaded that adequate compensation has been allowed. Following issues were framed on 29.1.1986 :- 1. Whether the compensation awarded for the acquired structures in dispute is inadequate and, if so, to what extent ?OPA. 2. Relief. The claimant examined AW-1 Vidya Sagar, Draftsman, who has stated that he remained Head Draftsman and Circle Draftsman and has sufficient experience regarding the supervision of the buildings. He has proved the estimate of the plot of Basant Kaur petitioner Ex.P-1. According to which, the valuation of the house comes to Rs.13870.19ps. He has also proved the site plan Ex.P-2. The details of the building Ex.P-3. In rebuttal the respondent examined Raghbir Singh, Junior Engineer, PWD B&R, Patiala, who has proved his report Ex.RW1/A. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence assessed the value of the property as Rs.11,250/, which is 50% more RFA No. 937 of 1991 3 than the amount assessed by the Collector. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above said Award, the claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that AW-1 Vidya Sagar has given minor details of construction and according to the report, the valuation of the property is Rs.13,870.19ps. On the other hand, the amount assessed by Shri Raghbir Singh, Junior Engineer, PWD B&R, has not given any detail. So, in these circumstances, the trial Court should have accepted the evidence of Vidya Sagar Draftsman (AW-1) in preference to Raghbir Singh, Junior Engineer, PWD B&R ( RW-1). I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the records of the case. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant carries weight and has to be accepted. It is a civil case and has to be decided on the preponderance of evidence. Vidya Sagar Draftsman (AW-1) has given each and every details of the construction whereas Raghbir Singh, Junior Engineer, PWD B&R ( RW-1) has simply relied upon the report which is signed by the SDO. The SDO has not been examined. The details have not been given. So, in these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge, should have accepted the report Ex.A1. Consequently, the appeal is partly accepted. The legal representatives of claimants are held entitled to claim Rs.2620/- more in RFA No. 937 of 1991 4 addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal. (Rs.13870.19ps minus Rs.11,250/- =Rs.2620/-). The legal representative of the appellant is also held entitled to claim other statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE May 03 , 2010 sv