The importance of detailed and mathematically based expert opinions in compensation assessment under the Land Acquisition Act.

J.S.Narang, J.

1. The land in the revenue estate of village Mehna Tehsil and district Bhatinda was acquired for the purpose of establishing Cantonment at Bhatinda. In this regard, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated May 10, 1979 and the notification under Section 6 of the act dated October 4, 1979, had been issued accordingly. It may be mentioned that village Abadi was also acquired inclusive of the houses and tubewells which had been installed by the proprietors and other residents of the village for which separate award was given.

2. In the case at hand, the tubewell etc. of the claimants was assessed at the rate of Rs. 34,863/-. Being dissatisfied, reference under Section 18 of the Act had been made before the Reference Court which had been contested by the respondent. The plea of the respondent is that no objections had been submitted by the claimants before the Collector, as such he is estopped from claiming any further enhanced compensation before the Reference Court. From the pleadings of the parties, the issues had been framed and the parties have led their respective evidence. The claimants had produced expert witness Shri H.S. Virdi, retired SDR (AW2). On the other hand respondents have examined Shri K.S. Gondhara, as RW1.

3. Reference Court while examining the evidence granted compensation for superstructure and tubewell as opined by Shri H.S. Virdi, SDE as Shri Virdi has given a detailed report/opinion and he has also admitted that the equitable excavation is not possible at Bhatinda and, therefore, he has not given any vertical cost for excavation. It is easier and more practical to assess the cost by placing reliance upon the detailed estimate than the plinth area basis estimate as the same would be sort of rough estimate. It may be noticed that the Land Acquisition Collector placed reliance upon the opinion of the Government engineer who has given the assessed price of the tubewell as Rs. 34863/- as against the assessed value given by Shri Virdi s Rs. 37759/-. On the basis of it the difference between the two is approximately Rs. 2896/- and the Reference Court has granted 5% enhancement of the aforestated difference i.e. a sum of Rs. 2896/- has been enhanced.

4. The claimant still being dissatisfied has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the reference Court has made a categoric observation that the expert produced by the claimant has given the detailed report whereas the report given by the Government Engineer is not a detailed report as he has not given the rate for carrying out vertical excavation and has placed reliance upon the plinth area basis estimate yet the enhancement has been granted based on conjecture and surmises. It is the settled law that if the evidence produced by the claimant satisfies all the tests laid down under the law of evidence, there is no reason to discard such piece of evidence even if the amount projected is little less than double the amount in comparison to the expert produced by the other side. It has been further argued that the opinion given by this very Engineer has been accepted by this Court on a number of occasions, resultantly, this calculations are mathematically based and are not based on conjectures.

5. The perusal of the pleas of the respondents shows that the opinion of the expert produced by the claimant has not been dewatered in any manner. Apart from this, the Government Engineer has categorically admitted that the vertical excavation is not possible in Bhatinda area and, therefore, any such excavation carried out rate has not been given and that the maximum possibility to carry out such excavation is five meters, in his estimate the cost for well sinking.

6. After considering the claim of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Reference Court has made an effort to compare the two expert opinions and by equati