JATINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY issuance of a notification dated 13-6-1978, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'), the Haryana State acquired 62. 92 acres of land for the construction of Hydro Electric Project by the Haryana State Electricity Board. The Land was evaluated by a separate award. By the award under challenge before this Court the super structures of various land owners were evaluated. This Court is concerned with the evaluation of super structure of Jatinder Singh appellant only. The Land Acquisition Collector has evaluated the super structure of the appellant at Rs. 8,640/- and the Additional District Judge dismissed the reference qua super structure. Before the Additional District Judge two experts were produced i. e. one by the appellant and the other by the Department. AW-4 Harnam Dass Grover is Draftsman. On behalf of the Department, R. R. Sharma Junior Engineer working in the office of XEN Quality Control, HSEB, Yamuna Nigar, RW-1 has been produced. The expert produced by the appellant has been disbelieved primarily on the ground that he gave his report Exhibit A. 15 in the year 1980 whereas the land along with the superstructure was acquired in the year 1978. The other ground upon which he was disbelieved is that he gave the measurement of the covered area at 955 Square feet which in fact was 960 square feet as given by the expert Mr. R. R. Sharma, RW L In other words, Additional District Judge was of the view that the report and the statement of the departmental witnesses deserved to be given more credence than the report and the statement of the expert produced by the appellant. Whatever could reasonably be said about the expert produced by the appellant, his report and the statement cannot be taken on its face value because he is only a Draftsman, He is not an expert in evaluating the buildings.

(2.) AS regards, RW-1, Mr. R R. Sharma, much can be said about his evidence. He has given the report Exhibit R-6 in which he has started about the rate for the super structure by observing as followed:

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the report of RW-1 Mr. Sharma, cannot be held to be a sufficient guide for determining the market value of the super structures. Once the expert was putting the valuation of the super structure in the year 1979. the question of taking the depreciated value of 40 years back, would not arise. The land along with super structure was acquired in the year 1978 and therefore, the claimant is entitled to the valuation of that year. As has been admitted by him did he not place any extract from the entries in the schedule of rates before the Court In view thereof, the statement of RW-1 or his report cannot form legal basis for determining the market value of the super structure.