UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in this appeal would also govern the fate of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 of 1984 and the Cross -Objection Nos. 100 -CI, 101 -CI, 103 -CI, 111 -CI of 1985 in view of the virtual similarity of facts and the contention raised therein.

(2.) THE claimant's house situated in the revenue estate of village Mehna, Tehsil and District Bhatinda, was acquired by the Union of India in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act'), on May (sic), 1979 for the construction of Bhatinda Cantonment. The Collector evaluated this house at Rs. 52,2190/ - for purposes of paying compensation to the claimant. This was so done on the basis of an estimate prepared by Shri Bishan Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer (R.W. 1) Since the claimant did not accept the adequacy of this compensation, he sought a reference under section 18 of the Act and as a result thereof the District Court, Bhatinda, has enhanced this valuation by Rs. 11,00/ - only though the landowner had put his claim at Rs. 85,007/ -. This enhancement was ordered in the light of the evidence of Shri H.S. Virdee, Sub Divisional Engineer (Retd) A.W. 1 and the evidence of the claimant himself. The Court, while accepting the estimate prepared by Shri Virdee as the basis, imposed a cut of 20 per cent on account of the age of the building. Besides this, the Court also deducted another amount of Rs. 6,000/ from this estimated value of the house on account of the fact that certain material (worth that much) was of no use to the acquiring authorities.

(3.) THE sole submission of Shri H.S. Brar, learned counsel for the Union of India, is that the evidence of Shri Bishan Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer (R.W. 1) estimating the value of the house at Rs. 58,290/ -, should have been given preference or weightage over the evidence of Shri H.S. Virdee, Sub Divisional Engineer, Retd. (A.W.1) and the statement of the claimant himself for the reasons that the latter mentioned witnesses were interested in inflating the claim, whereas Shri Bishan Singh (R.W. 1), being departmental officer, had no such interest. This submission of the learned counsel has no force. While preparing the plan of the house Exhibit A -2 and the report about its estimated value Exhibit A -1, Mr. Virdee took notice of all the material aspects i.e., the quality of the construction or the material used, the age of the construction, its situation and durability etc. The trial court appears to have rightly accepted this valuation as the basis and then noticing the age of the building, Imposed a cut of 20 per cent on this estimated value. Merely because R.W. 1 was an employee of the department does not mean that his evidence is more credible or reliable than that of A.W. 1. I, therefore, rejected the above -noted stand of Mr. Brar.