Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24928
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
NALINI E – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Respondent
WP(C) 9071/2024
SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS, KRISHNA T C, SCGC Smt.Deepa V., GP
The court established that independent expert valuation is essential in compensation disputes to ensure accuracy and fairness.
Headnote:
Compensation - Property Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3G(5) - The court modified the appointment of an expert for property valuation, emphasizing the need for an independent assessment due to discrepancies in previous valuations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' property was partially acquired for a highway project, leading to disputes over compensation for the remaining land and building. The petitioners sought a re-evaluation of the compensation awarded, citing significant discrepancies in valuation reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the Executive Engineer for valuation was inappropriate given the existing discrepancies and the petitioners' request for an independent expert. It modified the order to appoint the Head of the Civil Engineering Department for a fair assessment.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the Executive Engineer for property valuation was appropriate given the existing discrepancies in valuation reports.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of an independent valuation to ensure fairness in compensation assessments, particularly when prior reports showed significant differences.
Final Decision: The court modified the appointment of the valuation expert to the Head of the Civil Engineering Department.
JUDGMENT
The property of the petitioners having an extent of 0.0300 Hectares and portion of the residential building comprised in Re-survey No.29/6 of (new 2/11) of Elayavoor Village in Kannur District was acquired for the construction of Pappinisserry-Muzhapilangad NH bypass. After acquisition, Ext.P2 award was passed. The 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 4th respondent requesting to acquire the entire residential building on the ground that part acquisition will injuriously affect the remaining portion of the building. Therefore, some more portion of the land and building was additionally acquired. The 3rd respondent as per Ext.P6 awarded an amount of ₹6,77,847/- as compensation for the portion of the building additionally acquired from the petitioners. According to the petitioners, no amount of compensation was given for the land even though an extent of 0.34 Ares of land was acquired. Therefore, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent with a copy to the 3rd respondent requesting them to survey the remaining land and award compensation for the land additionally acquired. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Ext.P9 arbitration petition as AP. No.2011/2022 before the 2nd respondent under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the NH Act') requesting to re-determine the compensation awarded. Earlier, the whole building of the petitioners was valued by the 5th respondent and submitted Ext.P10 report. As per Ext.P10 report, the valuation of the building was assessed at ₹36,68,039/-. The petitioners filed I.A.No.167/2022 before the Arbitrator requesting to appoint a competent civil engineer or building valuer to value the building and submit a report. The 2nd respondent as per Ext.P11 directed the 5th respondent to report the stability of the structure and further directed to submit the full valuation of the building, if the remaining house is not suitable for human dwelling. Pursuant to Ext.P11, the 5th respondent submitted Ext.P12 report stating that human dwelling in the remaining building is unsafe. Thereafter, the 5th respondent submitted Ext.P13 report before the 2nd respondent determining the valuation of the building as ₹23,12,896/-. Since there is difference in Exts. P10 and P13 reports, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P14 application (IA in AP No.2011/2022)
requesting the 2nd respondent to appoint the Head of the Civil Engineering Department, Government College of Engineering, Kannur for valuing the building again and to submit a report before the Arbitrator. The 2nd respondent/Arbitrator instead of appointing the Head of the Civil Engineering Department, Government College of Engineering, Kannur, appointed Executive Engineer PWD (Buildings), Kannur as per Ext.P15 order to value the building and submit the valuation report. It is challenging the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court.
2. I have heard Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. T.C. Krishna, the learned SCGC and Smt. Deepa V., the learned Government Pleader.
3. Going by Exts.P10 and P13 reports, there is huge difference in the valuation of the building. The learned Government Pleader submits that the reason for the difference is that there was some calculation mistake in Ext.P10 report. At any rate, since there is differences in Exts. P10 and P13, the 2nd respondent decided to appoint a third person to value the building and accordingly, the Executive Engineer, PWD (Buildings), Kannur was deputed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P13 report was prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kannur and Ext.P10 was approved by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kannur and thus there is no point in appointing Executive Engineer PWD (Buildings), Kannur to conduct the valuation, he being the superior officer of the Assistant Executive Engineer. On the other hand, the learned Government Ple
