Bachan Singh & another vs State of Punjab and another

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

Vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act somewhere in the year 1981, land belonging to the claimant land owners was acquired for a public purpose.

There was a tube well upon the aforesaid land as well. A supplementary award was passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector on April 29, 1987 with regard to the tube well. The aforesaid tube well was assessed at Rs. 1,434.05. The claimant land owners felt dissatisfied. They claimed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was duly referred.

During the course of reference proceedings, the parties to the reference led their evidence. The claimants produced one Jai Singh, retired Sub Divisional Officer as PW1. He inspected the spot and prepared the sit plan Exhibit P1. He also submitted his estimation of the valuation as Exhibit P2. In the aforesaid report Exhibit P2, the said expert valued the tube well at Rs. 13,960/.

On the other hand, the State of Punjab produced Upinder Singh, Junior Engineer as RW1. The aforesaid witness also submitted estimation of the tube well and estimated the valuation as Rs. 612.50 vide report Exhibit R1/A.

The learned District Judge rejected the estimation as assessed by RW1. It was held that the aforesaid estimation was totally without any basis, inasmuch as, a tube well could not be installed with the aforesaid paltry amount of Rs. 612.50. Accordingly, the learned District Judge, assessed the market value of the aforesaid tube well at Rs. 5,000/. The claimants were also held entitled to the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of the Act.

The claimants have felt dissatisfied and have approached this Court through the present appeal.

I have heard Sh. P.S. Saini, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sh. K.K. Goel, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the respondents, and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

A perusal of the award rendered by the learned District Judge Ropar clearly shows that the entire evidence led by the respondents has been rejected by him. It is further apparent that the estimation report submitted by RW1 as Exhibit R1/A whereby the value of the tube well was assessed at Rs. 612.50 was even much lower than the assessment made by the learned Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated April 29, 1987. Accordingly, no reliance could have been placed and had not rightly been placed on the same by the learned District Judge.

Sh. P.S. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no evidence had been led by the respondents to show that the assessment made by PW1 Jai Singh, Sub Divisional Officer and the report submitted by him in that regard, assessing the market value of the tube well at Rs. 13,960/ was in any manner erroneous. According to Sh. Saini, there was absolutely no justification to ignore the aforesaid report and assess the tube well at any lower rate.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the plea raised by Sh. Saini and find myself in agreement with the same.

The evidence on record clearly proves that the claimant land owners had produced Jai Singh PW1, who was an expert in the matter. He visited the spot and prepared a site plan Exhibit P1. The valuation report was submitted as Exhibit P2. The claimant Bachan Singh himself appeared as PW2. Although the aforesaid claimant Bachan Singh stated that the value of the tube well was Rs. 18,000/ to Rs. 20,000/, but in any case, he could not be heard to make a claim beyond the report Exhibit P2, submitted by the expert Jai Singh.

I do not find any justification at all to reject the report Exhibit P2. There is no evidence available on the record produced by the respondents to show that the aforesaid report in any manner is erroneous or on the higher side.

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and it is directed that the claimantappellants shall be entitled to receive the compensation for the acquired tube well as Rs. 13,960/. The claimants, additionally, shall also be entitled to the benefits of statutory provisions of the Act, as admissible to them, in accordance with law.

No Costs.