L.A.Act – Compensation for Building – guess estimate is not warranted when material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is available on record for reduction of value fixed already – LAO awrded Rs.1,43,430/- NO records filed on which basis he arrived that rate – in trial court commissioner was appointed with the assistance of Retd. Eng. value of the Building was assessed for Rs. 4,45,000/- . Trial court accepted the evidence – No rebuttal evidence – but High court reduced it to Rs.3,50,000/- with out justifiable reasons – Apex court held In the facts of the case, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that guess estimate is not warranted when material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is available on record. As already seen, there is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondents insofar as the valuation of the building is concerned and the High Court committed error in resorting to guess estimate for reducing the value of the building and the impugned judgment in this regard is liable to be set aside.=CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6396 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31619 of 2012] Rajesh Valel Puthuvalil & Anr. .. Appellant(s) -vs- Inland Waterways Authority of India & Anr. .. Respondent(s) = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41770

    L.A.Act – Compensation for Building – guess  estimate  is  not  warranted  when material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is  available  on record for reduction of value fixed  already – LAO awrded Rs.1,43,430/- NO records filed on which basis he arrived that rate – in trial court commissioner was appointed with the assistance of Retd. Eng. value of the Building was assessed for Rs. 4,45,000/- . Trial court accepted the evidence – No rebuttal evidence – but High court reduced it to Rs.3,50,000/- with out justifiable reasons – Apex court held In the facts of the case, we find force in the  submission  of  the  learned counsel for the  appellants  that  guess  estimate  is  not  warranted  when material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is  available  on record.   As already seen, there is  no  rebuttal  evidence  adduced  by  the respondents insofar as the valuation of the building is  concerned  and  the High Court committed error in resorting to guess estimate for  reducing  the value of the building and the impugned judgment in this regard is liable  to be set aside.=

Admittedly, the total area of the building was 758  Sq.  ft.  and

the

Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of  Rs.1,43,430/-  towards  value  of

structure.

No records were produced to show as to how  the  said  valuation

was made  by  the  respondents.

In  the  Reference  Court  the  appellants

herein/claimants took out a Commission to fix the value of the building  and

the  Commissioner  was  assisted  by  AW-2  a  retired  Assistant  Executive

Engineer who valued the building and prepared Ext.C-3 Valuation  Report  and

Ext.C-4 Plan.

Ext.C-1 and C-2 are Mahazar prepared by the Commissioner  and

his Report  respectively.

The  value  of  the  building  was  assessed  at

Rs.4,93,000/- and as  the  building  was  12  years  old,  depreciation  was

calculated and after deduction the net value was  arrived  at  Rs.4,45,000/-

and the Reference Court accepted the same.

The High Court held that  having

regard to the cost of construction of the building  in  the  year  1997  the

value of construction fixed by the Reference Court is  on  the  higher  side

and re-fixed the value of the building at Rs.3,50,000/- on  guess  estimate.

In the facts of the case, we find force in the  submission  of  the  learned

counsel for the  appellants  that  guess  estimate  is  not  warranted  when

material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is  available  on

record.  

As already seen, there is  no  rebuttal  evidence  adduced  by  the

respondents insofar as the valuation of the building is  concerned  and  the

High Court committed error in resorting to guess estimate for  reducing  the

value of the building and the impugned judgment in this regard is liable  to

be set aside.

6.    The appeal is allowed and the impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court

insofar as re-fixing the value of structures concerned is set aside and  its

determination  made  by  the  Reference  Court  is  restored.    No   costs.

 

 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41770