JUDGMENT : 

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 02.08.2001 passed by the learned Reference Court-cum-Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur.

2. Briefly stating, in the present case, some land owned by the appellant situated in the revenue estate of Village Tharra Jhikla Teeka Doong, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, Pathankot (erstwhile district Gurdaspur) came to be acquired vide notifications dated 23.06.1995 and 24.11.1995 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The acquisition was carried out for public purpose, namely, for Hydel Channel of Shahpurkandi Dam Project. At the time of acquisition, certain construction was already existing over the land in question regarding which award was passed by Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the LAC') on 12.03.1998 granting compensation to the tune of Rs.1,11,570/- to the landowner(s). Being aggrieved thereof, the appellant-landowner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved of the decision dated 02.08.2001, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by way of evidence in the shape of deposition of AW-1 namely, Pawan Kumar, approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering), site plan, valuation and assessment report regarding the construction existing over the acquired land were proved on record as Exs. A-2 and A-1 respectively whereby, the total value of the building was assessed at Rs.1,99,420.43/- and thus, the appellant-landowner was entitled for the same benefit.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that a well-reasoned award was passed by the learned Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence available on record and the same thus, calls for no interference and the present appeal needs to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-landowner.

6. As per the records, the appellant-landowner was awarded sum of Rs.1,11,570/- as compensation towards structure existing over the acquired land. From the deposition of RW-2, Fakir Chand Goel, Extra Assistant Engineer, PWD, B&R, it is clear that the award was passed on the basis of assessment made by the respondents- authority. Pertinently, the valuation of house and other structures over the acquired land needs to be carried out as per the current Common Schedule of Rates (CSR) as applicable to PWD Irrigation Branch.

7. On the other hand, the valuation of the super structure has been proved on record as Rs.1,99,420.43/- by the appellant- landowner through deposition of AW-1/Pawan Kumar; the approved valuer (possessing Diploma of Civil Engineering) through Site plan (Ex.A-2) and Valuation Report (Ex.A-1).

8. Despite a lengthy cross-examination of AW-1, respondents have not been able to impeach the credibility of his deposition, thus, in such circumstances, the Assessment Report (Ex.A-1) needs to be relied upon as a relevant and substantive piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation in favour of appellant-landowner. Under similar circumstances, this Court in "Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rattan Chand and Anr." reported as 2012(1) RCR(Civil) 192 went on to take average of both the valuations made by the respective parties. Adopting the same, in order to balance the equities, the appellant-landowner is held entitled for award of compensation on the basis of average of the two valuations i.e. one made by the LAC @ Rs.1,11,570/-and the other one which has been proved on record by the appellant-landowner through the expert valuer (AW-1) @ Rs.1,99,420.43/- which comes to Rs.1,55,495.21/- [(Rs.1,99,420.43+ Rs.1,11,570)/2] alongwith all other statutory benefits.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is disposed of.

10. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunat