The admissibility of reports from the P.W.D. Engineer and the Commissioner as evidence, and the reliance on such reports in determining the valuation of land and building under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act.

K. BHASKARAN, AG. C.J.:- An extent of 0.0068 hectares of land in R.S. No. 394/7 of the Area code village with the building thereon, was acquired for a public purpose, viz. for widening and improving the Areacode Vazhakkad road, after having published the notification in that behalf under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (the Act) on 5-12-1972. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 21,986/- for the shop building and the land value at the rate of Rs. 25,925/- per hectare, as per his award No. 23 of 1976 dt. 14-8-1976.

2. It is aggrieved by this valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer that the respondents-claimants made the reference under S.20 of the Act. When the matter came up before the Subordinate Judge, Manjeri, in L.A.R. No. 4 of 1977, which was reference under Section 20 of the Act, three witnesses, A. Ws. 1 to 3, were examined on the side of the Claimants; and on the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined. Ext. A1 is the certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Areacode Panchayat to one of the claimants. Ext. A2 is the registration copy of sale deed No. 251/68 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Areacode, which was proved by A.W.3, who had executed that document on 12-2-1968. Under that document, 1.25 cents of land in R.S. No. 392/3 of that village was sold by A.W.3 to the Muslim League Committee for Rs. 1000/-. According to her, that price was received from the vendee; and that represented the value of the land inasmuch as there was no other improvement or plants on the land in question. As against this, there is the evidence of R.W. 1, the Special Revenue Inspector, who assessed the land value on the basis of Ext. R1 sale deed dt. 24-1-1972 (document No. 105/72 of the S.R.O. Areacode). In the course of the evidence, R.W.I admitted that Ext. 1 property was away from the land acquired in this case, though it was lying within one furlong therefrom between Ext. R1 property and Ext. A2 property, the latter is nearer to the acquired property. The rate of land value as could be determined from Ext. A2 for that land would come to Rs. 800/- per cent. Adopting that rate to be the rate applicable for the land in the present case also, the court below fixed the land value of the property at Rs. 1364.22.

3. The main contention, however, is in regard to the enhancement of the value of the building. In contrast to Rs. 21,986/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the court below on reference awarded Rs. 40000/- by way of building value, as against the claim of Rs. 75000/- by respondents-claimants. The admitted case, as is found stated in para 5 of the judgment under appeal, is that the building was constructed in 1967. The significant fact is that neither the valuation, statement prepared by the P.W.D. Engineer has been produced in court nor has the P.W.D. Engineer who made the valuation, been examined in court. A.W.I who gave evidence on behalf of the claimants, has stated in evidence that a sum of Rs. 4200/- used to be received by way of annual rent for the building in question. Ext. A1 certificate issued by A.W.2, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, also was relied on in this behalf, Ext. A1 would go to show that the rental value of the building, as assessed by the Panchayat, from 1973 onwards, was Rs. 4200/- per annum. Inasmuch as the acquisition was under the notification dt. 5-12-1972, strictly speaking, the rental value for the period from 1973 onwards, found in Ext. A1, could not be accepted as quite relevant for the purpose of fixation of income of the acquired building in this case. In fixing the value of the building, the court below has placed reliance on Ext. XI and Ext. X2 reports of the Commissioner.

According to Ext. XI and Ext. X2, the total value of the buildings, after deducting 10% for the depreciation, is Rs. 40,497.77. The Commissioner had in his reports stated, inter alia, that the building was in good condition at the time to its acquisition. It is in t