Sher Singh vs Land Acquisition Collector

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—This judgment shall dispose of all the four appeals involving identical facts and questions of law for adjudication and also pertains to the same acquisition proceedings.

Petitioners in Land Reference Petition Nos. 2-R/4 of 2004, 3-R/4 of 2004, 4-R/4 of 2004 and 5-R/4 of 2004, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the awards passed on 7.6.2008 by learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur are before this Court in these appeals with the prayer that the same be modified and the compensation with respect to the acquired land and their houses enhanced.

The record reveals that land of the petitioners-appellants herein situated in Mauza Sarahan, Tehsli Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla has been acquired by the respondent for the public purpose namely extension of campus of Shri Mata Bhimakali Temple for providing adequate facilities to the devotees visiting the temple to pay obeisance to the Deity. The detail of the acquired land of the petitioners-appellants in these appeals reads as follows:-

Besides land, their houses were also in existence over the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Collector, has assessed the market value of the land as follows:-

In order to assess the market value of their houses, though report Ex. RW-2/A, prepared by RW-2 Jitender Dutt, in all the four cases and verified by RW-3 Rakesh Gupta, has been made basis; however, the compensation awarded is on lesser side as compared to the market value thereof assessed by RW-2 and RW-3. It is in this backdrop, these appeals have been preferred for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the market value of the nature of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 2,00,000/- per Bigha. Also that the value of their houses was much-much more as compared to the one assessed by the respondent-Collector. Therefore, in modification of the award under challenge in these appeals, the compensation has been sought to be enhanced.

Having gone through the entire record including the evidence and analyzing the submissions made on both sides, it would not be improper to conclude that the petitioners have failed to make out a case that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,00,000/- per Bigha. The self serving statement of the petitioner(s) alone, who, in all these petitions, have appeared in the witness box as PW-1, that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 2,00,000/- per Bigha, being not supported by any documentary proof cannot be believed as gospel truth. As a matter of fact, in order to substantiate this part of their cases, the petitioners should have placed on record the sale instances qua the sale of land in the vicinity, where the acquired land situated, immediately before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. No such evidence has, however, been produced. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly declined to interfere with the market value of the acquired land assessed by the respondent-Collector.

Now coming to their claims qua award of compensation with regard to their houses in existence over the acquired land, the petitioners have claimed the same at the rate of the assessment made by PW-2 Somesh Kumar. The assessment report prepared and proved by PW-2 Somesh Kumar in all these cases is Ex. PW-2/A. Shri Somesh Kumar has assessed the market value of the houses of the petitioners as follows:

PW-2, however, is an architect. Normally the job of an architect is to prepare the drawings. He or she cannot be said to be technically qualified to make assessment of the evaluation of any house or building. Shri Somesh Kumar seems to be a private practitioner and working on payment of remuneration basis. It would not be proper to place reliance on his testimony to arrive at a conclusion that the value of the houses was the one as he assessed in his report Ex. PW-2/A, on the record of all the references the petitioners preferred. Learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly refused to make the same basis for determination of the compensation payable to the petitioners with regard to the houses existing over the acquired land.

The respondent-Collector though has made the reports Ex. RW-2/A, on the record of all the references, basis to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners with regard to their houses, however, compensation has not been awarded to them as per the evaluation of their houses as indicated in these reports made by RW-2 Jitender Dutt, the Junior Engineer, duly verified by RW-3 Shri Rakesh Gupta, Assistant Engineer and rather at rates allegedly reduced at the instance of Superintending Engineer concerned by way of cuttings and interpolation in the reports. The chart below contains the detail qua evaluation of the houses of each of the petitioners-appellants made by the Junior Engineer and the reduced rates at which the compensation has been awarded to them:-

Surprisingly enough, the compensation towards the houses belonging to the petitioners has not been awarded as per the evaluation made by RW-2 Shri Jitender Dutt, the own witness of the respondent. RW-2 though in his examination-in-chief has stated that the value of the house of the appellant-petitioner Sher Singh & others was assessed as Rs. 4,69,073/-, whereas that of Shri Pratap Chand Rs. 2,06,684/-, Smt. Angi Dolma Rs. 5,29,094/- and Shri Hardayal Singh & another was Rs. 3,26,016/-, however, in his cross-examination, he has stated that as per the initial assessment he made the value of the house of Sher Singh & others was assessed as Rs. 6,30,278/-, whereas that of Shri Pratap Chand Rs. 3,08,386/-, Smt. Angi Dolma Rs. 8,99,912/- and Shri Hardayal Singh & another was Rs. 4,88,867/-. He further tells us that the assessment so made by him was even verified by the Assistant Engineer also. He expressed his ignorance as to who made cuttings and interpolation in the evaluation report Ex. RW-2/A, he prepared.

If coming to the testimony of RW-3, Shri Rakesh Gupta, the then Assistant Engineer, Sarahan, he has stated that as per the report with regard to the evaluation of the houses of the petitioners prepared by RW-2, the value of the house of Sher Singh & others was assessed as Rs. 6,30,278/-, whereas that of Shri Pratap Chand Rs. 3,08,386/-, Smt. Angi Dolma Rs. 8,99,912/- and Shri Hardayal Singh & another was Rs. 4,88,867/-. As per his further version the Superintendent Engineer has, however, reduced the value of the house of Sher Singh & others to Rs. 4,69,073/-, whereas that of Shri Pratap Chand Rs. 2,06,684/-, Smt. Angi Dolma Rs. 5,29,094/- and Shri Hardayal Singh & another Rs. 3,26,016/-. When cross-examined, he also expressed his ignorance with regard to the cuttings made in the evaluation report(s) Ex. RW-2/A, and also admitted that the cuttings in the reports have not been initialed by anyone. While denying that the market value of the house of Sher Singh & others was Rs. 7,94,000/-, whereas that of Shri Pratap Chand Rs. 3,62,500/-, Smt. Angi Dolma Rs. 16,66,600/- and Shri Hardayal Singh & another Rs. 7,73,000/- has voluntarily stated that the value of the houses of Shri Sher Singh & others was Rs. 6,30,278/-, whereas that of Shri Pratap Chand Rs. 3,08,386/-, Smt. Angi Dolma Rs. 8,99,912/- and Shri Hardayal Singh as Rs. 4,88,867/-. Meaning thereby that he has admitted the value of the houses of the petitioners initially assessed by RW-2 Jitender Dutt. There was no occasion to the Court below to have placed reliance on the report Ex. RW-2/A in its revised form, more particularly, when the cuttings and interpolations therein have been unauthorizedly made by someone whose identity is not disclosed on record and that too without putting initials in token thereof. The statement of RW-3 that it is the Superintending Engineer concerned, who has made cuttings in the report and revised the same by reducing the assessment originally made by RW-2 cannot be believed to be true for want of initials of the Superintending Engineer under his office seal in token of the cuttings he made nor the Superintending Engineer has stepped into the witness box to justify the cuttings so made and the revised assessment so made.

On the other hand, from the statement of RW-2 and RW-3 it is proved that the evaluation of the house of Shri Sher Singh & others was Rs. 6,30,278/-, whereas that of Shri Pratap Chand Rs. 3,08,386/-, Smt. Angi Dolma Rs. 8,99,912/- and Shri Hardayal Singh & another Rs. 4,88,867/-. The petitioners in the light of such evidence available on record and also in all fairness as well as in the ends of justice are, therefore, entitled to the compensation with regard to their houses in existence over the acquired land at the rates initially assessed by RW-2 Jitender Dutt in the report(s) Ex. RW-2/A. Therefore, that part of the award under challenge, which pertains to the payment of compensation to the petitioners qua their houses at the reduced rates, is neither legally nor factually sustainable and the same therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In view of what has been stated hereinabove all these appeals succeed partly and the same are accordingly allowed. Consequently, the petitioners-appellants Sher Singh & others is awarded Rs. 6,30,278/-, whereas Shri Pratap Chand Rs. 3,08,386/-, Smt. Angi Dolma Rs. 8,99,912/- and Shri Hardayal Singh & another Rs. 4,88,867/- as compensation towards their respective houses, which were existing over the acquired land. The balance amount due and payable to them be calculated accordingly and paid to them together with statutory benefits in the shape of solatium and interest from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the payment thereof. The awards under challenge in these petitions stand modified accordingly.

Original copy of this judgment be placed on the record of RFA No. 192 of 2008 whereas the copies duly authenticated on the records of RFA Nos. 193, 194 and 195 of 2008.

All the appeals accordingly stand disposed of, so also the pending applications if any.