J-fa803.04.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL No.803 OF 2004
Madhavrao Govindrao Awagan,
Aged about 42 years,
Occupation : Cultivator,
R/o. Mokh, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal. : APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Collector, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer,
Benefitted Zone at Yavatmal,
Distt. Yavatmal. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri Sachin W. Sambre, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri B.M. Lonare, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
rd DATE : 3 NOVEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 20 th December, 2003, rendered in Land Acquisition Case No.30/1994 by the Court of Civil ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:33:56 ::: J-fa803.04.odt 2/4 Judge, Senior Division, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal on the ground that it grants inadequate compensation.
2. Two houses along with open plots were compulsorily acquired for the purposes of Arunavati Project by the State Government. Revised Section 4 Land Acquisition Act notification came to be published on 4.3.1989 and 14.3.1989. As the compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, the appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of his claim regarding grant of fair and just compensation. Section 18 application was decided by the Reference Court on merit. It found that the compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was on the lesser side and, therefore, partly allowing the reference application, it held that the market value of the two houses along with surrounding open plots was of Rs.5,09,930/- . Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order, the reference application was partly granted together with all statutory benefits. Not being satisfied with the same, the appellant is before this Court in the present appeal.
3. I have heard Shri Sachin W. Sambre, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri B.M. Lonare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents-State. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order and the record of the case.
::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:33:56 :::
J-fa803.04.odt 3/4
4. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is :
Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?
5. It is seen from the impugned judgment and order that the Reference Court has not completely discarded the evidence of valuer, PW 2 Abhay Patil (Exh.-45) insofar as the method of valuation is concerned. However, the Reference Court, did not accept the valuation carried out by the valuer separately for different items mentioned in the valuation report at Exh.-47 and substituted by its own imagination the figures of the valuation so carried out by the expert valuer. The Civil Court not being an expert in the matter, cannot, on the basis of some surmises or imagination, substitute its own valuation for the valuation scientifically done by an expert valuer. It would be a different matter if some scientific evidence is available to counter the valuation made by such an expert. In the present case, no such scientific evidence is available on record and, therefore, the substitution of the figures of the valuation done by the Reference Court would have to be held to be illegal and perverse, which I do so. Similar, is the view taken by this Court in the case of First Appeal No.47/1998, decided on 5 th October, 2016, wherein, the acquired house property was situated just adjacent to the house properties involved in the present case.
6. In the circumstances, the valuation report vide Exh.-47 of the ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:33:56 ::: J-fa803.04.odt 4/4 expert valuer would have to be accepted as it is. The valuation of the house properties together with the open lands has been made by the valuer to be at Rs.17,09,924/-. This would be the market value of the acquired properties and the appellant would be entitled to receive compensation for the acquired properties of Rs.17,09,924/- together with all statutory benefits granted by the Reference Court at same rates as are granted by the Reference Court. The appeal deserves to be allowed. The point is answered accordingly.
7. The appeal is allowed.
8. It is declared that the appellant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.17,09,924/- it being the true market value of the acquired properties together with all statutory benefits granted by the Tribunal on the same rates on this enhanced compensation.
9. The impugned judgment and award stand modified in the above terms.
10. Additional Court fee shall be paid within one month from the date of order.
11. Parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:33:56 :::