The Executive Engineer, M.I.W. vs Vitthal Damodar Patil and Anr.

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 case arising from an independent notification issued in earlier point of time concerning another village/Taluka cannot be the basis to mechanically hold that since the valuation report has been prepared by the same witness, it must be accepted as duly proved in all respects in the reference under consideration, moreso in respect of the justness of the valuation of the subject property. In the present case, the Reference Court discarded the valuation report on the finding that the valuer did not explain or bring on record how he made categories of custard apple. The High Court overturned that finding but failed to examine the nuances of the cross-examination of the witness brought on record by the appellant and the purported admission given by him, including the contention that he had failed to produce any proof to establish that he was ever approved by the Government at the relevant time as an approved valuer and also to justify the valuation of the subject property. The 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. There is no proper analysis of the oral evidence which has come on record in the present case and moreso the efficacy of lengthy crossexamination 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. [Paras 13, 14] [963-F-H; 964-A-G]

1.3 Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the issues raised in the present appeal, the impugned judgment is set aside and the parties are relegated before the High Court for consideration of First Appeal No.2536 of 2015 afresh, on its own merits and in accordance with law. All contentions available to both the parties, which can be legitimately pursued in the first appeal, are left open. [Paras 15, 16] [965-A-C] Chindha Fakira Patil (dead) through LRs. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon (2011) 10 SCC 787 – referred to.