In a significant legal decision, the Supreme Court of India has directed a reconsideration of the valuation report in the case related to land acquisition. The Court’s verdict comes after a challenge to the High Court’s approach in accepting a particular valuation report without a thorough examination of all evidence presented. The parties involved in the case will now have the opportunity for a fresh evaluation before the High Court, ensuring a fair and comprehensive assessment of the matter at hand.
Facts
- The Reference Court referred to the Government Resolution regarding average yield statement of fruit trees for fixing rates of fruit-bearing trees.
- The compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was higher than the rate fixed by the Reference Court.
- The High Court partially allowed the appeal by the claimants and enhanced the compensation amount for land acquired for the construction of a Minor Irrigation Tank.
- The original compensation rates fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer were Rs.59,800/- per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.1,500/- per hectare for Potkharab land.
- The claimants appealed in the High Court, providing a valuation report and witness evidence.
- The Reference Court acknowledged the evidence presented by the claimants during the appeal.
- Valuer categorized custard apple trees in three categories but claimant’s pleadings show a different value for each tree contrary to the report.
- Claimant submitted having 65 Chiku trees, 1 mango tree, and 678 custard apple trees.
- Valuation report of fruit-bearing trees submitted to show income and rates.
- Claimant stated mango trees were local and valued each at Rs. 30,250/-.
- Witness Dr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari and Dr. Kamalnayan Uttamchand Sanghavi examined in respective references for fruit trees valuation.
- Valuation per fruit tree was listed as custard apple Rs. 7,358/-, Rs.6,889/-, and Rs.6,420/-, mango local Rs. 21,600/-, and Chiku Rs. 4,648/-.
- The respondents relied on Valuation Report dated 10 October 1998 by Mr. Ravindra Chaudhari and examined him as a witness.
- Land possession occurred on 14 May 1996 with a value of Rs. 30,251/- per mango tree.
- Claimants in L.A.R. No.365/03 claimed to have 2 mango trees.
Also Read: Balancing Justice: Case Summary of C.P. No. 16/2017
Arguments
- Appellant challenges the High Court’s approach of mechanically accepting the subject valuation report without considering the entire evidence.
- Appellant argues that the witness examined by the respondents was extensively cross-examined on various aspects, questioning his competence and eligibility to issue the valuation report.
- Appellant asserts that the valuation by the Reference Court is proper and the High Court erred in disregarding tangible material and evidence on record.
- Special Land Acquisition Officer and respondents support the High Court’s view, stating that the valuation report was duly proved by the expert witness.
- Respondents claim that the witness, Mr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari, was competent to prepare the valuation report despite cross-examination.
- The High Court is criticized for basing its judgment on the average value of sale instances rather than the highest value paid for similar land, as per the sale instance.
- Appellant questions the credibility of the witness, labeling the valuation report as self-serving and unreliable.
- High Court’s failure to analyze the factual position from evidence produced in the case is highlighted by the appellant.
- Appellant argues that the appeal must fail on both the ground of delay and on merits.
- The High Court’s reasoning for discarding the valuation report is challenged as irrelevant and based on pure conjectures.
- Shri Shishodia relied on the judgments in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector of Madras, State of Punjab v. Hans Raj, and Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa in support of the argument.
- The objection regarding the appeal being barred by limitation was rejected at the outset.
Also Read: Redefining Pre-Deposit Requirements: Ideal Detonators Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
Analysis
- The evidence of Mr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari, witness examined by the claimants, was not properly analyzed by both the Reference Court and the High Court.
- The High Court misapplied the decision in the case of Chindha Fakira Patil by not considering the issues raised by the appellant regarding the competency and procedure followed by the valuer.
- The valuation report was prepared before possession of the land was taken and long before the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
- The appellant’s contention about the witness being examined before possession was not properly examined by the High Court.
- The valuation report was discarded by the Reference Court for lack of explanation on how categories of custard apple trees were made.
- Both courts did not give proper reasons for valuing the fruit-bearing trees at a lesser rate.
- The witness stood by the report in the cross-examination and the valuer personally visited the acquired land for assessment.
- The valuation was supported by market rates of fruits fixed by the APMC and references from relevant literature.
- The Apex Court’s decision in the case of Chindha Fakira emphasized the expertise of the valuer but also suggested a deduction of 20% from the valuation.
- The judgment focused on the examination of Mr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari’s testimony and the acceptance of the valuation report with deductions.
- The High Court failed to consider the nuances of the cross-examination of the witness brought on record by the appellant.
- It did not examine the purported admission given by the witness, including the lack of proof regarding government approval as an approved valuer at the relevant time.
- The High Court relied on a valuation report because the same witness had prepared a similar report in another case accepted by the Court previously.
- There was no proper analysis of the oral evidence or the cross-examination of the witness in the present case. The credibility, reliability, and admissibility of the evidence were not adequately assessed.
Also Read: Interpreting Section 14 of the 2002 Act: Equivalence of CJM and CMM
Decision
- No order as to costs.
- All contentions available to both parties in the first appeal are left open.
- The appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside.
- Parties are relegated before the High Court for reconsideration of First Appeal No.2536 of 2015.
- Reconsideration to be done on its own merits and in accordance with the law.
- All pending applications are disposed of in terms of this order.
Case Title: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I.W. Vs. VITTHAL DAMODAR PATIL
Case Number: C.A. No.-005125-005125 / 2019
