1. Land acquisition for public purpose — Dispute over compensation for fruit-bearing trees — Reference under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 694
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
The Executive Engineer, M.I.W. – Appellant
Versus
Vitthal Damodar Patil and Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.11433 of 2019)
Decided on : 01-07-2019
Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence of witness examined the analysis thereof by Supreme Court in some other reference case arising from an independent acquisition notification issued in earlier point of time concerning another village/Taluka - Valuation report prepared by the same witness cannot be mechanically accepted as duly proved in all respect.
Headnote:(a) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - High Court, in first appeal, not examining the evidence of the sole witness examined by respondents and his cross examination - Issues raised by appellant ought to be examined by High Court on its own merits. (Para 11)
(2011) 10 SCC 787 - Distinguished
(b) Administration of justice - Evidence of witness examined by the claimants and the analysis thereof by Supreme Court in some other reference case arising from an independent notification issued in earlier point of time concerning another village/Taluka - Valuation report prepared by the same witness cannot be mechanically accepted as duly proved in all respect in reference under consideration. (Para 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to compensation in land acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
Issues raised by appellant ought to be examined by High Court on its own merits.
Evidence of witness examined the analysis thereof by Supreme Court in some other reference case arising from an independent acquisition notification issued in earlier point of time concerning another village/Taluka - Valuation report prepared by the same witness cannot be mechanically accepted as duly proved in all respect.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a valuation report should be accepted based on the expert's credibility in other cases versus specific evidence and cross-examination in the current proceeding. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. The High Court mechanically accepted the valuation report based on a different case without analyzing the specific evidence and competency of the valuer in the present matter. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Every reference proceeding must be decided on the basis of evidence produced and issues raised in that specific proceeding, regardless of the witness's acceptance in other cases. (Para 13 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment set aside — Matter relegated to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
6. Can a valuation report be accepted solely because the same expert's report was accepted by a higher court in a different case?
No. Every reference proceeding must be decided based on the evidence produced and issues raised in that specific proceeding. Acceptance of a witness in another case cannot be the basis to mechanically accept their report in a different proceeding. (Para 13 )
7. What is the duty of an appellate court when evaluating expert evidence and cross-examination?
The appellate court must analyze the evidence in its proper perspective, including the nuances of cross-examination regarding the expert's competency, capability, and the specific procedure followed in preparing the valuation report. (Para 11 , 14 )
8. Does the acceptance of a witness's testimony in one land acquisition reference bind the court in another reference arising from a different notification?
No. Evidence and analysis from a reference case arising from an independent notification concerning another village or taluka cannot be the basis to mechanically hold that a report is duly proved in a different reference. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 26th October, 2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in First Appeal No.2536 of 2015, whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-claimants against the decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in a reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), and enhanced the compensation amount for the lands acquired for the purpose of construction of Minor Irrigation Tank at Village Pimpri, Block Dambhurni, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra.
3. Briefly stated, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9th July, 1998, pursuant to which the land belonging to the respondents situated at Village Pimpri, Block Dambhurni, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra, was acquired for the stated public purpose. After following the necessary formalities, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 14th November, 2000, fixing the price at the rate of Rs.59,800/per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.1,500/per hectare for Potkharab land. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 14th May, 1996. The respondents, however, resorted to a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was decided by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, vide judgment and order dated 19th September, 2015. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the respondents carried the matter in appeal before the High Court which, as aforesaid, came to be partly allowed and resulted in the compensation amount being enhanced.
4. For considering the issue involved in the present appeal, suffice it to observe that the respondents-claimants had relied on the Valuation Report dated 10th October, 1998, prepared by Mr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari. Besides relying on the said valuation report, the respondents had examined Mr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari as their witness to prove the same. The Reference Court adverted to the said evidence and noted as follows:
“11/There is contention of the claimants that the opponents have not given the compensation to the fruit bearing trees as per the fruits quality, quantity. To support their contentions, they have examined valuer of fruit bearing trees Dr. Ravindra Ghanshyam Chaudhari and Dr. Kamalnayan Uttamchand Sanghavi in respective references. Witness deposed that he is well experienced in horticulture. They have produced the valuation report of fruit bearing trees to show the income of fruit bearing trees and rate of the fruit trees.
12/In L.A.R. No.354/03 the claimant submitted that in his land there were 65 Chiku trees, 1 mango tree and 678 custard apple trees. As per his pleadings, he valued per tree of Chiku Rs.1,500/mango Rs.10,000/and custard apple Rs.2,000/. The valuer has produced the report and he categorized custard apple tree in three categories. He has shown the valuation of per fruit tree custard apple Rs.7,358/, Rs.6,889/and Rs.6,420/, mango local Rs.21,600/ and Chiku Rs.4,648/.
13/In L.A.R. No.365/03 the claimants claimed that there were 2 mango trees and value of per mango tree was Rs.30,251/. The valuer has produced the report. He has submitted that mango trees were local and he has shown the value of each fruit tree and mango local Rs.30,250/.
14/If we perused the pleadings of the claimant in L.A.R. No.354/03 then value of each tree is contrary to the report of valuer and how the valuer made categories of custard apple, nothing is brought on record. The claimant has also produced the market rates of A.P.M.C., Jalgaon to show the rates in the year 1995-96.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. The Reference Court then proceeded to refer to the Government Resolution regarding average yield statement of fruit trees (irrigated fruit crops) and concluded as follows:
“17/Considering the abovesaid ratio, I fix the rates of frui
