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.
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.
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.
