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 5 submissions 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 6 available 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