THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I.W. versus VITTHAL DAMODAR PATIL AND ANR

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 954 · Decided: 01-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I.W.
v.
VITTHAL DAMODAR PATIL AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5125 of 2019)
JULY 01, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4, 18 – Land belonging to
the respondents was acquired for public purpose – Special Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the price at the rate of
Rs.59,800/- per hectare for Jirayat land and Rs.1,500/- per hectare
for pot Kharab land – Possession of the acquired land taken –
Respondents, preferred reference u/s.18 of the Act – Decided –
Dissatisfied, respondents appealed before the High Court – Partly
allowed, compensation enhanced – On appeal, held: Neither the
Reference Court nor the High Court analysed the evidence of the
witness examined by the respondents in its proper perspective,
particularly in the context of the issues raised by the appellant about
his competency, capability and including the procedure followed
by him in preparing the valuation report relied by the respondents –
Further, the High Court misapplied the decision in Chindha Fakira
Patil – High Court relied upon the subject valuation report
essentially because the same witness had prepared a similar valuation
report and submitted it in some other reference proceeding, which
came to be accepted by Supreme Court in the case of Chindha
Fakira Patil – Said decision is of no avail because every reference
proceeding must be decided on the basis of the evidence produced
and the issues raised by the parties in the concerned proceeding –
In the present case, there is no proper analysis of the oral evidence
and moreso the efficacy of lengthy cross-examination of the said
witness by the appellant in respect of matters such as his eligibility,
competence and including credibility, reliability and admissibility
of the evidence given by him regarding the contents of the valuation
report – Impugned judgment set aside – No opinion expressed on
any issues raised in the present appeal – Parties relegated before
the High Court for consideration of the appeal, afresh, on its own
merits and in accordance with law.
   [2019] 8 S.C.R. 954
954
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The objection regarding the appeal being barred
by limitation, rejected. In the peculiar facts of the present case,
the explanation offered by the appellant for condoning the delay
in filing of this appeal is a just and plausible explanation. Neither
the Reference Court nor the High Court analysed the evidence
of Mr. ‘RGC’, witness examined by the claimants in its proper
perspective and more particularly in the context of the issues
raised by the appellant about his competency, capability and
including the procedure followed by him in preparing the valuation
report and without providing any proof to justify the opinion
formulated by him as regards the valuation of the acquired
property. All these points, though raised by the appellant, as is
manifest from the tenor of his cross-examination by the appellant,
have not received proper attention of the High Court which was
dealing with the first appeal, both on facts and on law. The High
Court, misapplied the decision in the case of Chindha Fakira
Patil. [Paras 11, 12] [962-G-H; 963-A-C]
1.2 The reported decision adverted to the observation made
by the Reference Court concerning the testimony of Mr. RGC,
who is the same witness. That has been noted in paragraph 11 of
the reported judgment. The Court, no doubt, in paragraph 22 of
the reported decision, noted that there was no reason to discard
the valuation report of Mr. RGC. However, neither the Reference
Court nor Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision was called
upon to consider the question about the eligibility and competency
of the witness examined by the claimants. That issue has been
specifically raised by the appellant in the present case, relying
on the purported admission of the witness. Whether this
contention raised by the appellant deserves acceptance or
otherwise, is a matter which ought to have been examined at
least by the High Court on its own merits. In other words, the
reported decision is of no avail because every reference
proceeding must be decided on the basis of the evidence produced
and the issues raised by the parties in the concerned proceeding.
Thus, the evidence of the witness examined by the claimants and
the analysis thereof by Supreme Court in some other reference
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.I.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.