Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6396     OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31619 of 2012]

Rajesh Valel Puthuvalil & Anr. ..            Appellant(s)

-vs-

Inland Waterways Authority  of India & Anr. ..             Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and final  

order dated 30.3.2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at  

Ernakulam in L.A.A. no.995 of 2010.

3. The property of  the appellants herein,  both land and  

structures situated at Alappad Village at Karunagappally Taluk

Page 2

2

of Kollam District was acquired at the instance of respondent  

no.1 herein, for the purpose of widening the narrow stretches  

of National Waterways no.3 and award came to be passed.  

Dissatisfied with the award the appellants/claimants preferred  

reference  and  the  Reference  Court  re-determined  the  land  

value  and  the  value  of  the  building,  by  enhancing  it.  

Challenging  the  same,  respondent  no.1  herein  preferred  

appeal  and  the  High  Court  confirmed  the  land  value  re-

determined  by  the  Reference  Court  and  at  the  same time  

reduced  the  value  of  the  structures  from  a  sum  of  

Rs.4,45,000/-  to  a sum of  Rs.3,50,000/-.   Aggrieved by the  

same  the  appellants/claimants  have  preferred  the  present  

appeal.   

4. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  strenuously  

contended that the High Court committed an error in reducing  

the  compensation  for  the  building  on  the  basis  of  guess  

estimate  discarding  the  objective  material  in  the  form  of  

Ext.C-3  Valuation  Report  available  on  record,  resulting  in  

grave  injustice  to  the  appellants.   Per  contra,  the  learned  

counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents  contended  that  the

Page 3

3

High Court taking into account the total area and the year of  

construction  has  re-determined  the  value  of  the  structures  

and it does not call for any interference.

5. Admittedly, the total area of the building was 758 Sq. ft.  

and  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  awarded  a  sum  of  

Rs.1,43,430/-  towards value of  structure.   No  records  were  

produced to show as to how the said valuation was made by  

the  respondents.   In  the  Reference  Court  the  appellants  

herein/claimants took out a Commission to fix the value of the  

building and the Commissioner was assisted by AW-2 a retired  

Assistant  Executive  Engineer  who  valued  the  building  and  

prepared Ext.C-3 Valuation Report and Ext.C-4 Plan.  Ext.C-1  

and C-2 are Mahazar prepared by the Commissioner and his  

Report respectively.  The value of the building was assessed  

at  Rs.4,93,000/-  and  as  the  building  was  12  years  old,  

depreciation was calculated and after deduction the net value  

was  arrived  at  Rs.4,45,000/-  and  the  Reference  Court  

accepted the same.  The High Court held that having regard  

to the cost of construction of the building in the year 1997 the  

value of construction fixed by the Reference Court is on the

Page 4

4

higher  side  and  re-fixed  the  value  of  the  building  at  

Rs.3,50,000/- on guess estimate.  In the facts of the case, we  

find force in  the submission of  the learned counsel  for  the  

appellants  that  guess  estimate  is  not  warranted  when  

material evidence in the shape of Ext.C-3 Valuation Report is  

available  on  record.   As  already  seen,  there  is  no rebuttal  

evidence adduced by the respondents insofar as the valuation  

of the building is concerned and the High Court committed  

error in resorting to guess estimate for reducing the value of  

the  building  and  the  impugned  judgment  in  this  regard  is  

liable to be set aside.   

6. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of  

the  High  Court  insofar  as  re-fixing  the  value  of  structures  

concerned  is  set  aside  and  its  determination  made by  the  

Reference Court is restored.  No costs.            

                                                      ……..…………………...J. (T.S. Thakur)

……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; July 15, 2014.