advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

L.A.Act - Compensation for Building - guess estimate is not warranted when material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is available on record for reduction of value fixed already - LAO awrded Rs.1,43,430/- NO records filed on which basis he arrived that rate - in trial court commissioner was appointed with the assistance of Retd. Eng. value of the Building was assessed for Rs. 4,45,000/- . Trial court accepted the evidence - No rebuttal evidence - but High court reduced it to Rs.3,50,000/- with out justifiable reasons - Apex court held In the facts of the case, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that guess estimate is not warranted when material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is available on record. As already seen, there is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondents insofar as the valuation of the building is concerned and the High Court committed error in resorting to guess estimate for reducing the value of the building and the impugned judgment in this regard is liable to be set aside.=CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6396 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31619 of 2012] Rajesh Valel Puthuvalil & Anr. .. Appellant(s) -vs- Inland Waterways Authority of India & Anr. .. Respondent(s) = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41770

    L.A.Act - Compensation for Building - guess  estimate  is  not  warranted  when material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is  available  on record for reduction of value fixed  already - LAO awrded Rs.1,43,430/- NO records filed on which basis he arrived that rate - in trial court commissioner was appointed with the assistance of Retd. Eng. value of the Building was assessed for Rs. 4,45,000/- . Trial court accepted the evidence - No rebuttal evidence - but High court reduced it to Rs.3,50,000/- with out justifiable reasons - Apex court held In the facts of the case, we find force in the  submission  of  the  learned counsel for the  appellants  that  guess  estimate  is  not  warranted  when material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is  available  on record.   As already seen, there is  no  rebuttal  evidence  adduced  by  the respondents insofar as the valuation of the building is  concerned  and  the High Court committed error in resorting to guess estimate for  reducing  the value of the building and the impugned judgment in this regard is liable  to be set aside.=

Admittedly, the total area of the building was 758  Sq.  ft.  and
the
Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of  Rs.1,43,430/-  towards  value  of
structure.
No records were produced to show as to how  the  said  valuation
was made  by  the  respondents.  
In  the  Reference  Court  the  appellants
herein/claimants took out a Commission to fix the value of the building  and
the  Commissioner  was  assisted  by  AW-2  a  retired  Assistant  Executive
Engineer who valued the building and prepared Ext.C-3 Valuation  Report  and
Ext.C-4 Plan.
Ext.C-1 and C-2 are Mahazar prepared by the Commissioner  and
his Report  respectively.  
The  value  of  the  building  was  assessed  at
Rs.4,93,000/- and as  the  building  was  12  years  old,  depreciation  was
calculated and after deduction the net value was  arrived  at  Rs.4,45,000/-
and the Reference Court accepted the same.
The High Court held that  having
regard to the cost of construction of the building  in  the  year  1997  the
value of construction fixed by the Reference Court is  on  the  higher  side
and re-fixed the value of the building at Rs.3,50,000/- on  guess  estimate.

In the facts of the case, we find force in the  submission  of  the  learned
counsel for the  appellants  that  guess  estimate  is  not  warranted  when
material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is  available  on
record.  
As already seen, there is  no  rebuttal  evidence  adduced  by  the
respondents insofar as the valuation of the building is  concerned  and  the
High Court committed error in resorting to guess estimate for  reducing  the
value of the building and the impugned judgment in this regard is liable  to
be set aside.

6.    The appeal is allowed and the impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court
insofar as re-fixing the value of structures concerned is set aside and  its
determination  made  by  the  Reference  Court  is  restored.    No   costs.
 

 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41770


                                                        NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6396     OF 2014
      [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31619 of 2012]



Rajesh Valel Puthuvalil & Anr.          ..              Appellant(s)

      -vs-

Inland Waterways Authority
of India & Anr.                         ..             Respondent(s)


                               J U D G M E N T



C. NAGAPPAN, J.



Leave granted.

2.    This appeal is preferred against the judgment and  final  order  dated
30.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in  L.A.A.  no.995
of 2010.

3.    The property of  the  appellants  herein,  both  land  and  structures
situated at Alappad Village at Karunagappally Taluk of Kollam  District  was
acquired at the instance of respondent  no.1  herein,  for  the  purpose  of
widening the narrow stretches of National Waterways no.3 and award  came  to
be passed.  Dissatisfied with the award the  appellants/claimants  preferred
reference and the Reference Court  re-determined  the  land  value  and  the
value of the building, by enhancing it.  Challenging  the  same,  respondent
no.1 herein preferred appeal and the High Court confirmed the land value re-
determined by the Reference Court and at the same time reduced the value  of
the structures from a sum  of  Rs.4,45,000/-  to  a  sum  of  Rs.3,50,000/-.
Aggrieved by the same the appellants/claimants have  preferred  the  present
appeal.

4.    The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that  the
High Court committed an error in reducing the compensation for the  building
on the basis of guess estimate discarding  the  objective  material  in  the
form of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report available on  record,  resulting  in  grave
injustice to the appellants.  Per contra, the learned counsel appearing  for
the respondents contended that the High Court taking into account the  total
area and the year  of  construction  has  re-determined  the  value  of  the
structures and it does not call for any interference.

5.    Admittedly, the total area of the building was 758  Sq.  ft.  and  the
Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of  Rs.1,43,430/-  towards  value  of
structure.  No records were produced to show as to how  the  said  valuation
was made  by  the  respondents.   In  the  Reference  Court  the  appellants
herein/claimants took out a Commission to fix the value of the building  and
the  Commissioner  was  assisted  by  AW-2  a  retired  Assistant  Executive
Engineer who valued the building and prepared Ext.C-3 Valuation  Report  and
Ext.C-4 Plan.  Ext.C-1 and C-2 are Mahazar prepared by the Commissioner  and
his Report  respectively.   The  value  of  the  building  was  assessed  at
Rs.4,93,000/- and as  the  building  was  12  years  old,  depreciation  was
calculated and after deduction the net value was  arrived  at  Rs.4,45,000/-
and the Reference Court accepted the same.  The High Court held that  having
regard to the cost of construction of the building  in  the  year  1997  the
value of construction fixed by the Reference Court is  on  the  higher  side
and re-fixed the value of the building at Rs.3,50,000/- on  guess  estimate.
In the facts of the case, we find force in the  submission  of  the  learned
counsel for the  appellants  that  guess  estimate  is  not  warranted  when
material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is  available  on
record.  As already seen, there is  no  rebuttal  evidence  adduced  by  the
respondents insofar as the valuation of the building is  concerned  and  the
High Court committed error in resorting to guess estimate for  reducing  the
value of the building and the impugned judgment in this regard is liable  to
be set aside.

6.    The appeal is allowed and the impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court
insofar as re-fixing the value of structures concerned is set aside and  its
determination  made  by  the  Reference  Court  is  restored.    No   costs.


                                                       ……..…………………...J.
                                             (T.S. Thakur)


                                             ……………………………J.
                                             (C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
July 15, 2014.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.