IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No. 388 of 2004 Date of Decision : December 16, 2008 The Defence Estate Officer …Appellant. Versus: Chander Mani & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. For respondent No.1: Mr. I. D. Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Virender Bali, Advocate For respondents 2&3:Mr. R. K. Bawa, A. G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. SANJAY KAROL, JUDGE (Oral). The impugned Award dated 4.1.2003 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in Land Ref. Petition No. 31 of 2000 titled as Chander Mani vs. The Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., has been assailed by the Defence Estate Officer, Ambala, Haryana, on the ground that the compensation awarded is much on the higher side. For the purposes of setting up of defence establishment, land situated in village Averi, Phati Nirmand, Kothi Himri, Tehsil Nirmand, Distt. Kullu, H.P. was acquired by the State Government for and on behalf of the Defence Estate 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Officer, Ambala, Haryana. The claimant’s land comprising house, cowshed and courtyard on Khasra No. 5316/2 was also acquired. The acquisition proceedings commenced with the issuance of the Notification dated 16.11.1994 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which was published in the H.P. Rajpatra on 21.9.1995. Award No. 1/1998 dated 19.3.1998 was passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition. In terms of the Award, the market value of the acquired land and also the super structures were separately assessed. The market value of the acquired land is not subject- matter of the present appeal. With regard to the superstructures i.e. house and cowshed, the Collector, Land Acquisition assessed the market value at Rs.67,591/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed land reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the District Judge:- 1. Whether the Collector Land Acquisition had inadequately assessed the market value of the land/house under acquisition? …….OPP 2. Whether the reference petition is barred by time? ….OPR Adequate opportunity to adduce evidence was afforded to the parties. Appreciating the material on record (oral and documentary), the Court below enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.67,591/- to Rs.2,80,730/- (value of 3 house Rs.2,60,591/- plus Rs.20,139/- value of cowshed and courtyard). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. In order to prove its case, claimant Smt. Chander Mani examined herself as PW-1, Shri Mohar Singh (PW-2) and an Expert Shri Sushil Sharma (PW-3). As per the valuation carried out by the Expert having sufficient experience, the value of the house, cowshed and the courtyard, was in terms of reports Ext.PW-3/A, Ext.PW-3/B, Ext.PW-3/C, Ext.PW-3/D, Ext.PW-3/E, Ext.PW-3/F & Ext.PW-3/G. In rebuttal, the respondents examined Shri Yoga Nand (RW-1) Patwari of Patwar Circle, Nirmand who proved the average market price of the land of village Averi (Ext.RW-1/A) and Shri Naresh Kumar Thakur (RW-2), Executive Engineer, HPPWD, who carried out the assessment vide his reports Ext.RW-2/A, Ext.RW-2/B, Ext.RW-2/C & Ext.RW-2/D and determined the market value of the claimant’s house and cowshed to be Rs.67,591/-. Importantly, the Court below considered the material on record and held that the documents proved on record by the State were photocopies and could not be looked into for the purposes of determining the true and correct market value of the acquired land. Why the originals of the said documents were not placed and proved on record is not evident from the record. No doubt, the author of the said documents did step into the 4 witness box to depose the factum of the valuation carried out by him but, however, as has been pointed out by the Court below, he is not an Expert and his oral deposition after a period of 7 years from the date of his assessment cannot be considered to be reflective of the true market value of the acquired superstructures. On the other hand, the claimant has examined an experienced Architect (PW-3) to prove the market value of the house/cowshed. According to him, the valuation was carried out after visiting the site and is based on the price index prevalent at the relevant time. The valuation reports Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW- 3/G prove that the market value is Rs.2,80,730/-. It is true that the State was not associated with the preparation of the assessment reports Ext.PW-3/A to Ext.PW-3/G, but however, from the line of cross-examination as also the suggestion put to this witness, it cannot be doubted that the site was inspected and the assessment was made on the basis of the factual position at site. His statement is unimpeachable. PW-1 has categorically deposed that she had engaged the services of PW-3 and that her house was of good quality. The claimant has categorically deposed that she spent approximately Rs.6 lacs in the process of rehabilitation. There is no cross-examination on this point. For the aforesaid reasons, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned Award. The Court below has 5 considered the entire material in its entirety. There is no illegality or irregularity in the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 16, 2008. (rana)