VIMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the value of superstructure and the loss of business that were occasioned to the landowner. At the time when the property was acquired, the superstructure was a poultry farm which the landowner was running at the acquired property. The farm was situate in an extent of about 400 square yards in the village Tejli, District Yamuna Nagar.

(2.) The landowner contended that he had constructed the poultry shed only in the year 1988- 89 and the property fell to be acquired and taken possession of in the year 1991. The landowner gave evidence as regards the valuation through a report of the building expert. The report was marked as P2 and the evidence of the expert was PW1. The report sets out the details of the construction, namely, of one office, one store, poultry shed, stairs, boundary wall, steel gate in the main entrance and brick paving in open yard. He had assessed the valuation at L 2,14,000/-. While giving evidence as regards this, no more than a mere suggestion was put to the witness that he had given an exaggerated valuation. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination that any of the valuations made did not conform to the standard PWD rates. As sketchy was the cross-examination of the witness of PW1, the State evidence itself was far from satisfactory. He had valued the superstructure at the figure close to L 98,000/-, but worked out a depreciation and assessed the valuation at L 38,872/-. In the manner of assessment, he had observed that on local enquiry, he found the age of the building to be about 8 years and taking the total life span of the building as 15 years, he had worked out a depreciation as high as 53% and upon the amount so arrived, he made further deduction of 15%. I find the manner of assessment to be wholly unsatisfactory.

(3.) The landowner had himself given evidence to the effect that he had to spent L 1,15,000/- for construction. Evidently, his own witness PW1 was making the valuation which was more than what even the owner had spent. Providing for an appropriate depreciation on a consideration that the landowner had put up the construction only one year earlier, I will take the value of the construction at L 1 lakh. The Reference Court has provided the loss of the poultry business at L 9,000/-.