Valuation report not a binding admission, but interest on compensation may be awarded on equitable principles for deprivation of property.
A third person's valuation report does not become a binding admission under Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act unless there is a clear intention by the party to adopt it; on the facts, the State had only referred the assessor for possible settlement, so the report did not bind the State. Where immovable property is taken and compensation is payable, interest may nevertheless be awarded on equitable principles to reflect deprivation and the circumstances of withholding; the Court approved interest at reasonable rates for the relevant periods. The appeal therefore succeeded only in part, with the valuation issue rejected and interest upheld.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessor's report valuing the disputed land could be treated as an admission under Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to bind the State; and (ii) whether the appellant, having been deprived of property, was entitled to interest on the compensation payable for the land.
Issue (i): Whether the assessor's report valuing the disputed land could be treated as an admission under Section 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 so as to bind the State.
Analysis: Section 20 applies where a party expressly refers another person for information in relation to a matter in dispute, and the resulting statement operates as an admission only when there is a clear intention to adopt or abide by it. The materials did not show any agreement by the State Government to accept the assessor's valuation as final or binding. The reference to the assessor was only to ascertain value for possible settlement, and the report itself was based on an erroneous valuation basis. A statement by the assessor in these circumstances could not be elevated into a binding admission against the State.
Conclusion: The assessor's report was not an admission under Section 20 and did not bind the State; this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant, having been deprived of property, was entitled to interest on the compensation payable for the land.
Analysis: Where a person is deprived of immovable property, the court may award interest on equitable principles, and such award may rest on the implied obligation to pay interest on the value of property taken. The proper compensation had to reflect the value of the plot under the applicable allotment terms, but the rise in land values and the circumstances of dispossession justified an additional award by way of interest. The Court approved the grant of interest at reasonable rates for the relevant periods.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to interest on the compensation amount; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The valuation report did not bind the State as an admission, but the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation and interest on equitable grounds, so the appeal succeeded only in part.
Ratio Decidendi: A statement made by a third person referred to for information binds a party as an admission under Section 20 only when there is a clear intention to accept and abide by it, and interest may be awarded on equitable principles where immovable property has been taken or withheld and compensation is payable.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
