1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal (St) No. 22751 of 2016
Appellant : The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division,
Nagpur (now, Executive Engineer, Nagpur Irrigation
Division (North), Nagpur
Versus
Respondents: 1) Khushal son of Gangaram Bagde, aged Major,
Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Isapur (Bk), Tahsil
Katol, District Nagpur
2) State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-34
3) The Collector, through Special Land Acquisition
Officer (Small Irrigation Works), Chikhali Nallah
Project (Sub-Divisional Office), Katol
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for appellant Shri A. P. Kalmegh, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents 2 and 3 Coram : S. B. Shukre, J Dated : 13th December 2017 Oral Judgment
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
2. There is no need to call for Record and Proceedings as there ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:20:35 ::: 2 is no dispute about the material evidence relied upon by the Reference Court while passing the impugned Award and thus, this appeal can be disposed of on the basis of reflections of evidence appearing in the impugned Award.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned Award, the following point arises for my determination:
Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and proper ?
4. The Reference Court while passing the impugned Award dated 31.8.2015 in Land Acquisition Case No. 435 of 2002 has considered the entire evidence brought on record by respondent no. 1, but found the evidence in the nature of circular of the Public Works Department dated 21.8.1998 cannot be relied upon as the Government rates did not include the cost of amenities. The acquired property in the present case is a house along with open space, being house no. 73 admeasuring 30 square meter situated at mouza Isapur, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. This house was one of the properties compulsorily acquired for the purposes of Chikhli Nala Project. This house was situated in the submergence area of the Project. The reference Court found that the determination of the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:20:35 ::: 3 value of the structure and value of the open space done by the Land Acquisition Officer was on the lower side and, therefore, the same was enhanced to Rs. 5000/- per square meter for the built-up area and Rs. 200/- per square meter for the open space. Since this is not acceptable to the appellant, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.
5. In the present case, the claimant examined himself as well as examined the Government approved valuer Shri Pendse as PW 2. According to the approved valuer, value of the construction was of Rs. 6500/- per square meter and value of the open space was of Rs. 375/- per square meter. However, the Reference Court did not accept his evidence because, admittedly, at the time of inspection of the house in question, he had not seen the various documents which could have thrown light upon the cost of construction of material used for the construction. The Reference Court, however, accepted the PWD rates prescribed in circular dated 21.8.1998 which circular was not produced in evidence by the claimant, but was relied upon by the Reference Court in other cases. The rate prescribed in this circular was of Rs. 5500/- per square meter and it is seen from the impugned judgment that this rate together with the admissions given by the claimant served as guidance for the Reference Court to determine the market value of the acquired property in the present case which comprised house and open space surrounding the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:20:35 ::: 4 house. The admission given by the claimant was to the effect that the house was constructed in stone and mud. Therefore, the Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired house to be at Rs. 5000/- per square meter and open space surrounding it @ Rs. 200/- per square meter. The appreciation of evidence available on record done by the Reference Court and the approach adopted by the Reference Court having regard to the entire evidence available on record and the arguments of both sides, cannot be faulted with and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Reference Court deserve confirmation by the Court. These findings are that the true market value of the acquired house is of Rs. 5000/- per square meter and true market value of open space surrounding it is Rs. 200/- per square meter and the same are confirmed. Point is answered accordingly.
6. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court together with accrued interest, if any. Parties to bear their own costs.
S. B. SHUKRE, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:20:35 :::