0707 FA 186/2006 & XOB 4/2007 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 186/2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, through Executive
Engineer, Lower Wardha Project,
Wardha. APPELLANT
.....VERSUS.....
1] Ramkumaribai Shankarlal Chandak
(deleted as per order dt.17/02/2017).
2] Dinesh Shankarlal Chandak,
Aged 48 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
3] Narayan Shankarlal Chandak,
Aged 36 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
4] Manoj Shankarlal Chandak,
Aged 28 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
5] Mahesh Shankarlal Chandak,
Aged 28 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
All R/o. Arvi, Tq. Arvi, Distt. Wardha.
6] Jayashri Jagdish Moahata,
Occu: Household work,
R/o. Annanagar - 13, Main Road,
Synthetic Hospital, Madras.
7] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:04:52 :::
0707 FA 186/2006 & XOB 4/2007 2 Judgment
8] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Upper Wardha Project No.4,
Distt. Amravati. RESPONDE NTS
AND
CROSS OBJECTION NO. 4/2007
1] Ramkumaribai Shankarlal Chandak,
Aged about 64 years, Occu: Household,
2] Dinesh Shankarlal Chandak,
Aged 49 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
3] Narayan Shankarlal Chandak,
Aged 37 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
4] Manoj Shankarlal Chandak,
Aged 29 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
5] Mahesh Shankarlal Chandak,
Aged 29 years, Occu: Agriculturist,
All R/o. Arvi, Tq. Arvi, Distt. Wardha.
6] Jayashri Jagdish Moahata,
Occu: Household work,
R/o. Annanagar - 13, Main Road,
Synthetic Hospital, Madras. CROSS-OBJECTORS
.....VERSUS.....
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:04:52 :::
0707 FA 186/2006 & XOB 4/2007 3 Judgment
2] Land Acquisition Officer,
Upper Wardha Project No.4, Amravati.
3] Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha
Project Division, Wardha. RESPONDENTS
Shri V. Palshikar, counsel for appellant.
Smt. S.W. Deshpande, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 6/
cross-objectors.
Shri A.R. Chutake, AGP for respondent nos.7 and 8.
CORAM : DR. SMT. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : JULY 07, 2017. ORAL JUDGMENT :
Appellant, which is an Acquiring Body, has preferred this appeal challenging the enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Amravati vide its judgment and order dated 17/11/2005 in L.A.C. No. 671/1999. 2] Brief facts of the appeal, can be stated as follows:-
Respondent nos.1 to 6 are the owners of the house, bearing no. 122, situated in Ward No.2 of village Chinchpur. The said house, along with the land beneath it, came to be acquired by the State for the sub mergence of Lower Wardha Project, by virtue of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:04:52 ::: 0707 FA 186/2006 & XOB 4/2007 4 Judgment 1894 (hereinafter will be referred to as "Act" for convenience) and published on 16/12/1993. Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award on 14/05/1997, thereby awarding compensation of Rs.57,944/- to the respondent nos.1 to 6 towards acquisition of the house and the land beneath it.
3] Respondents-claimants being not satisfied with the said award, approached the trial court, seeking enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,30,008/-. Subsequently the respondent nos.1 to 6 amended their claim petition and sought compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- on the basis of report of valuation expert.
4] Respondent no.3 examined himself and also the valuer Shri Nandkumar Tiwaskar. As against it, appellant also examined Land Acquisition Officer Shri Kumar Khaire, who has passed the award.
5] On the basis of this evidence, the reference court was pleased to disbelieve the evidence of the expert Shri Tiwaskar and also did not find it fit to rely upon the valuation of the acquired ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:04:52 ::: 0707 FA 186/2006 & XOB 4/2007 5 Judgment land, as made by the Land Acquisition Officer, and accordingly granted the compensation of Rs.1,30,008/- only, which was initially claimed by the respondents.
6] Being aggrieved by this enhanced amount of compensation, this appeal is preferred by the Acquiring Body. On behalf of respondents also, cross-objections are filed, on the ground that the compensation enhanced by the reference court is quite meager.
7] In this appeal, I have heard learned counsel for appellant Shri Palashikar and learned counsel for respondent Smt. Deshpande. On their rival submissions, the only point which arise for my determination is, whether the enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded by the reference court is just, fair and adequate.
8] In this case, as per the evidence of respondents- claimants, it was their ancestral house. It was made in pakka construction with bricks and lime, having the roof of galvanised sheets and load bearing plinth. The teak wood was utilized for the ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:04:52 ::: 0707 FA 186/2006 & XOB 4/2007 6 Judgment construction. The total construction of the house was about 108.82 sq. mtrs. on the plot admeasuring 311 sq. mtrs. In his cross- examination, respondent no.3 has, however admitted that village Chinchpur where his house was situated, is not similar to other two villages, namely, Anjansingi and Mangrul, because both those villages are bigger than village Chinchpur and having better facilities, like, bank, school, college, primary health centre etc. Further he has admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know whether his house was purchased or constructed and if constructed, who has constructed it. He has also admitted that his house was consisting of ground floor only and it was inspected by Executive Engineer of B & C. and though he was present at the time of inspection, he has not raised any objection. He has further admitted that he has not produced any bills or vouchers showing that teak wood was purchased for the construction of the house. Thus, his evidence is silent as to the material particulars to justify the claim of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.
9] As regards the evidence of his witness Shri Tiwaskar, he has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen the valuation fixed by Executive Engineer for the house of the ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:04:52 ::: 0707 FA 186/2006 & XOB 4/2007 7 Judgment respondent. He had also no occasion to see the sale instances of neighbouring houses for the year 1992-93. Moreover, as rightly observed by the reference court, he is coming with a different version that said house was reconstructed by the respondents. The respondent no.3 himself has not stated anything to that effect. In such situation, his valuation report (Exh.26) that the said house could fetch the market price of about Rs.3,55,000/- is rightly not relied upon by the reference court.
10] In this situation, the only evidence that remains on record is that of the Land Acquisition Officer examined by the appellant. According to him, no objections were raised by the respondents at the time of determining the compensation, and he has determined the compensation, after collecting sale instances of adjoining villages of five years before the date of Notification, as there was no single sale transaction in the village Chinchpur during that period. He has stated that he has discarded the sale instances of village Anjansing and Mangrul as those were bigger villages situate on the highway and the facilities those villages had, were not available at village Chinchpur. Hence, he took into consideration the sale instances of village Kavali and accordingly fixed the price of ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:04:52 ::: 0707 FA 186/2006 & XOB 4/2007 8 Judgment land of Rs.52/- sq. ft. Further he also got valuation of construction of the house done through Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Amravati and then fixed compensation for open plot of land at Rs.25,752/-, whereas for constructed area Rs.32,192/- and thus total compensation of Rs.57,944/- with statutory benefits. 11] In cross-examination, he has admitted that at village Chinchpur, there is agricultural school, however, there is no highschool. Further he has admitted that, he does not know if village Kavali is in more interior area from State Highway than that of village Chinchpur. He has also admitted that in exceptional cases, the price of land at Chinchpur is more than Rs.84/- per sq. mtr. According to him, as he had not seen the house of respondents, he had no knowledge about the valuation of the said house, especially because he does not know even the nature of the house. Thus, it can be clearly said that the reference court has rightly refused to place reliance on the evidence of both the experts.
12] Much emphasis is given by learned counsel for respondents-claimants, on the admission given by the Land Acquisition Officer Khaire in his cross-examination that in ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:04:52 ::: 0707 FA 186/2006 & XOB 4/2007 9 Judgment exceptional cases, the price of the land of village Chinchpur is more than Rs.84/-, however, at the same time, he has denied that the rate of other lands of village Chinchpur is of Rs.80/- per sq. mtr. Now even if it is accepted that he has given the admission that in exceptional cases, the price of land of village Chinchpur is more than Rs.84/-, if it is per square metre, then the rate which is given to the respondent of Rs.52 per sq. ft. is required to be held as adequate.
13] It is needless to state that, the total compensation, therefore, awarded by the reference court of Rs.1,30,008/-, which was initially claimed by the respondents, appears to be just, reasonable, fair and correct. Hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of the reference court, either at the instance of appellant or at the instance of respondents. 14] Both appeal and cross objection, therefore, hold no merits, hence stand dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE Yenurkar ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:04:52 :::