AVTAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land in the revenue estate of village Mehna Tehsil and District Bhatinda was acquired for the purpose of establishing Cantonment at Bhatinda. In this regard, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated May 10, 1979 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act dated October 4, 1979, had been issued accordingly. It may be mentioned that village Abadi was also acquired inclusive of the houses and tubewells which had been installed by the proprietors and other residents of the village for which separate award was given.

(2.) IN the case at hand, the tubewell etc. of the claimants was assessed at the rate of Rs. 34863/-. Being dissatisfied, reference under Section 18 of the Act had been made before the Reference Court which has been contested by the respondent. The plea of the respondent is that no objections had been submitted by the claimants before the Collector, as such he is estopped from claiming any further enhanced compensation before the Reference Court. From the pleadings of the parties, the issues had been framed and the parties have led their respective evidence. The claimants had produced expert witness Shri H.S. Virdi, retired SDE (AW2). On the other hand respondents have examined Shri K.S. Gondhara, as RW1.

(3.) THE claimant still being dissatisfied has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Reference Court has made a categoric observation that the expert produced by the claimant has given the detailed report whereas the report given by the Government Engineer is not a detailed report as he has not given the rate for carrying out vertical excavation and has placed reliance upon the plinth area basis estimate yet the enhancement has been granted based on conjectures and surmises. It is the settled law that if the evidence produced by the claimant satisfies all the tests laid down under the law of evidence, there is no reason to discard such piece of evidence even if the amount projected is little less than double the amount in comparison to the expert produced by the other side. It has been further argued that the opinion given by this very Engineer has been accepted by this Court on a number of occasions, resultantly, his calculations are mathematically based and are not based on conjectures.