Summary
An expert valuation report could not be mechanically accepted merely because a different report by the same valuer had been accepted in another land-acquisition case. The High Court had failed to examine objections and cross-examination concerning qualifications, methodology, credibility and supporting proof. The compensation appeal was remanded for fresh consideration without deciding the valuation or the objections, including admissibility of proposed additional material.
Issues
- Whether acceptance of the same valuer’s evidence in another case justified accepting this report without independent scrutiny.
- Whether the High Court adequately examined the objections and cross-examination.
Held
- Each reference must be decided on its own evidence and issues. Acceptance of a report concerning another acquisition did not establish the witness’s competence or the correctness of the valuation in this case. (¶ 11–14)
- The first appellate court needed to examine the substantial objections and cross-examination on eligibility, credibility, methodology and supporting proof rather than rely mechanically on the earlier precedent. (¶ 11–14)
- The proposed new material concerning the valuer’s qualifications was also left for High Court consideration, subject to legitimate objections to additional evidence. All properly available first-appeal contentions remained open. (¶ 15–16)
Result
Appeal allowed after condoning delay. High Court judgment set aside and First Appeal 2536/2015 remanded for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law. No opinion on valuation or other merits; no costs. Pending applications disposed of.