Valuation of construction cost remains a question of fact where choice between State and Central PWD rates needs factual appreciation.

The determination of construction cost based on competing valuation reports was treated as a pure question of fact. The Court held that comparison of a registered valuer's report with the Departmental Valuation Officer's report, and the choice between State PWD rates and Central PWD rates, involved factual appreciation rather than a substantial question of law. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose and the appeal was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order remanding the matter on the valuation of construction cost and directing application of State PWD rates, instead of Central PWD rates, gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The determination of the cost of construction on the basis of rival valuation reports was held to be a pure question of fact. The Court noted that the appellate authority had not compared the registered valuer's report with the Departmental Valuation Officer's report, but held that such comparison and the choice between State PWD rates and Central PWD rates involved factual appreciation and did not generate a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the appeal was not maintainable on that basis.

---