DEVI JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment grants compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per bigha for the garden land measuring 35 bighas and 3 biswas situated in khasra No. 444(13-15), 450(10-01) and 451(11-07) in Village- Haiderpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'acquired land in question') which along with 3919 bighas of land of this village stood acquired vide Notification of 24th October, 1961 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Reference Court in the impugned judgment has granted the aforesaid compensation while relying upon an earlier judgment (Ex. PA-1) i.e. in Smt. Chameli Devi Vs. Union of India, pertaining to this Notification and the village. For the rooms, tube well, engine house etc. on the acquired land in question the compensation assessed in the impugned judgment is of Rs.5,500/-.

(2.) IN this appeal, compensation sought in respect of the acquired land in question having garden in it, is at the rate of Rs.16/- per square yard and for the structure on it compensation claimed is Rs.30,500/- while relying upon decisions in 'The Collector, Rajgarh Vs. Chaturbhuj Panda & Ors.' AIR 1964 MP 196; 'State of Kerala Vs. Mariamma Abraham and another' AIR 1969 Kerala 265; Collector, Jabalpur and another vs. Nawab Ahmad Yar Jahagir Khan, AIR 1971 MP 32; 'Smt. Gulabi & Ors. Vs. State of H.P.' 1997 (4) RCR (Civil) 179; 'State of Madras Vs. Rev Brother Joseph' AIR 1973 SC 2463; 'UOI Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi' AIR 1983 SC 1190; 'Special Land Acquisition Collector Vs. P. Veerabhadar Appa.' AIR 1984 SC 774 and 'Sunder Vs. Union of India' 93 (2001) DLT 569.

(3.) REGARDING assessment of compensation for the superstructure on the acquired land in question is concerned, opinion of the Experts certainly has to be taken into consideration and the Reference Court in the impugned judgment has relied upon the Valuation Report (Ex. AW-8/1) of an Expert (RW-1) who is a Government Valuer and his valuation is based upon the CPWD rates. Whereas learned counsel for the appellants relies upon Report (EX. AW-1/1) of a private valuer, who also claims to have applied CPWD rates for the costs of the bricks but his valuation of the superstructure on the acquired land in question is Rs.30,523/- whereas the Government Valuer (RW-1) has assessed compensation of the super structure at Rs.5,465/-. When the Valuation Report (Ex. AW-1/1) is considered vis-a-vis Valuation Report (Ex. AW-8/1), then it becomes apparent that the Government valuer's Report (Ex. AW-8/1) is objective one and is much prior in time than the Valuation Report (EX. AW-1/1) of the private valuer, which is on much higher side and therefore, impugned judgment rightly relies upon the Valuation Report of a Government valuer to determine the compensation in respect of the super structure on the acquired land in question.