The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of averaging valuation reports to determine compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

The present appeal arises out of the award passed by the Reference Court, Kapurthala dated 03.09.1990 filed by the landowners under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the enhancement of compensation for the construction over the land acquired for New Mandi Township, Dhilwan Miani Bakarpur. The Reference Court has not granted enhancement to the landowner and held that the compensation of Rs. 1,63,480/- already given to the claimants is correct and does not require any enhancement.

2. The reasoning given for denying the relief is that report of PW1 Satara Singh Ex.A1 was not relied upon on the ground that he was a Diploma in Civil Engineering whereas the Harbhajan Singh Walia (RW1) who was the SDO of B&R department had stated that roofs were having cracks and mud mortar was used and masonary work was done with mud mortar and the floor were conglomerate. Resultantly, the evidence of the witnesses of the landowners, namely, Gurbacahan Singh (PW2), a Government contractor who stated that there were shopping complex which was made of cement and RCC beams was also rejected on the ground that he was an interested witness since the claimant was also doing the job of contractor. Even the photographs (Ex.A3 to A6) were also referred to come to the conclusion that construction seemed to be of B-Class. The evidence of Harpartap Rai (PW5) being interested as claimant and contrary to the report of the SDO (Ex.R1 & R2) and was getting Rs. 1800/- as rent was also not taken into consideration. Heavy reliance was placed on the report of RW1 Harbhajan Singh Walia who stated that he inspected the premises on 01.02.1986 and found that the roof was not RCC slab and there were cracks in the roof. He further deposed that when he went, shutters were down and nothing was in the shops and they were not locked which means that there were no tenants in the shops and had there been any tenant then the goods must be lying in the shops and the tenants must be there. He further stated that there were no foundations at the back of the constructed portion.

3. Senior counsel for the appellants has contended that the report of the private valuator was not liable to be rejected per se and if the average of two reports is taken into consideration, the appellants would be entitled for enhancement. It is thus submitted that even if the value of rental of Rs. 1800/- of all shops is also taken into consideration then also enhancement was liable to be granted which has not been accepted by the Reference Court. State on the other hand has justified the award passed by the Reference Court and submitted that the Reference Court is correct in dismissing the reference petition.

4. The land was acquired vide notification dated 19/20.12.1983 whereby 36 acres 5 kanals 1 marla land of village Dhilwan and 4 kanals 9 marlas land of village Miani Bakerpur total 37 acres 1 kanal 10 marlas land was acquired for the public purpose of setting up of a New Mandi Township. The landowners had claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- for the cost of construction and Rs. 2 lakhs for cost of leveling and earth filling. The issue of compensation for the land already stands decided in favour of the landowners in RFA No.1142 of 1989 Harpartap Rai Puri vs. State of Punjab.

5. In the present petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was averred that building was constructed on the land in Khasra No.162/2 consisting of 10 shops in line, 4 rooms and kitchen over these shops which was a residential set used by the appellants and foundations for another building parallel to the shops and foundations laid up to the plinth level and 1 feet above ground level along the Dhilwan road. All these shops were made of 1st class pacca bricks laid with cement mortar with lintil on the roofs of all shops and chobaras, kitchen and the floors were made of RCC