Harshad Sunderlal Maniar vs Special Land Acquisition Officer ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 487 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. Admit. Respondents waive service.

By consent appeal is taken up for hearing.

2. The appellant is a Government approved valuer. He is aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paras 11 and 16 of the impugned judgment and order dated 8-3-2002 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1 of 1999 . Briefly stated the facts are that the first floor of the property bearing CTS No. 2023 of Mandavi Division belonging to the respondent No. 3 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. During the acquisition proceedings the respondent No. 3 had filed his claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000 per sq.ft. In support of his claim the respondent No. 3 submitted valuation report dated 20-7-1994 prepared by the appellant. The appellant in his report referred to three sale instances including instance of sale of CS No. 1784 of Mandavi Division under registered conveyance deed dated 28-5-1987. It seems that the office of the Special Land Acquisition collected about 6 sale transactions from the office of Sub-Registrar. The Land Acquisition Officer was of the view that none of the transactions relied by the claimants or collected by the office of the Land Acquisition Officer were comparable and suggested the rate of Rs. 3150 per sq.ft as reasonable on the basis of rates approved by the Deputy Director of Town Planning and Valuer. However, this proposal was not sanctioned by the Commissioner Konkan Division who fixed the valuation at Rs. 1800 per sq.ft. On 15-2-1996 the Land Acquisition Officer declared the Award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act under which the market price of the property is determined at the rate of Rs. 1800 per sq.ft. The respondent No. 3 filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation, in which the respondent No. 3 claimed market value of the property under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 3000 per sq.ft as against Rs. 1800 per sq.ft awarded in the Award. In the said reference evidence of the appellant was recorded before Baam, J., in the course whereof valuation report dated 20-7-1994 of the appellant and certified copy of the sale deed dated 20-5-1987 in respect of sale of property bearing CS No. 1734 of Mandavi Division and plan showing instance of sale and land under acquisition taken on record and marked as Exhibits Cl, C2 and C3 respectively. In his evidence recorded on 8-2-2002 the appellant deposed that considering the comparable instances of sale of property bearing CS No. 1784 of Mandavi Division vide deed of conveyance dated 20-5-1987 pursuant to the agreement for sale executed on 18-2-1987 and 15% rise per annum from the date of the agreement till the date of publication of notification under section 4 on 13-1-1993 on compound basis and considering the location of the property under acquisition, the appellant had valued the property under acquisition at Rs. 3219.66 per sq.ft. The appellant was cross-examined by the learned Counsel appearing for the responded Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The reference was thereafter heard by another Single Judge (Khanwilkar, J.) who after detailed analysis of evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the gross market value of the suit property would be Rs. 2700 sq.ft. The learned Judge, however, held that having regard to the fact that the suit property is admittedly 30 to 40 years old deduction of 20% will have to be provided for in view of the fact that the suit property is situated on the 1st floor as well as the fact that it was reserved for public hall and secondary school in the development plan and deduction of 20% from the amount of Rs. 2700 per sq.ft fair market price of the suit property will have to be determined at the rate of Rs. 2160 per sq.ft. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the valuation done by the appellant to arrive at a conclusion that the property under acquisition should be valued at Rs. 3219.66 or for that matter Rs. 3000 per sq. ft. was demonstrably incorrect, false and misleading, if not dishonest. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellant had attempted to mislead the Court in arriving at a just conclusion and this amounts to a penal offence. The learned Judge therefore referred the case of the appellant to the appropriate Government to take suitable corrective measures including to examine as to whether he should be allowed to practice as Government approved valuer in future. The learned Judge also directed to refer the case of the appellant to the Institute of Engineers, Institute of valuers and Institute of Surveyors with whom he is associated for taking appropriate corrective action against him. The relevant observations of the learned Judge in paras 11 and 16 of the judgment are reproduced below:

"11...In other words, the valuation done by the valuer Shri Maniyar to arrive at the conclusion that the property under acquisition should be valued at Rs. 3219.66 or for that matter Rs. 3000 per sq.ft is demonstrably incorrect, false and misleading, if not dishonest. I shall advert to this aspect of the matter a litter later." [2002(3) Bom.C.R. 439]

"16. I wish to further record that it was distressing to note that Shri Harshad S. Maniar who had appeared before this Court as P.W. 1 and who is a qualified Civil Engineer and Member of Institute of Engineers, Fellow of Institute of Valuers, Fellow of Institute of Surveyors, has, by his act of omission and commission, attempted to mislead this Court by giving false evidence. As is demonstrated from the calculations made in paras 10 and 11 above, it is seen that by no standards the market price of the suit property would exceed Rs. 2700 per sq.ft. However, Shri Maniar in his valuation report. Which is in the nature of certification of the market value, has positively opined that the fair market price of the suit property should be valued at Rs. 3000 per sq.ft. Even during his evidence he has reiterated this position and in fact went to the extent of suggesting that the fair market rate of the suit property should be valued at Rs. 3219.66 per sq.ft. by giving benefit of rise of the rate of 15% and weightage of 25%. However, the break up as to on what basis he has arrived at those figures is neither furnished in the valuation report or his evidence. Obviously it has been done with purpose because the final figures mentioned by him are mismatch with the actual calculation or break up. In as much as even if we were to accept the principle of weightage propounded by him and apply the same to the marker price in respect of the sale instance relied upon which is Rs. 993 per sq.ft even then the actual calculation would come to only Rs. 2700 per sq.ft and not Rs. 3219.66 per sq.ft as deposed to by his before the Court or for that matter Rs. 3000 per sq.ft as stated in his valuation report. Even the learned Counsel for the claimants was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation as to how the property can be value at Rs. 3219.66 or Rs. 3,000 per sq.ft as suggested by Shri Maniar in view of the evidence that has come to record. No doubt, the difference between the actual gross market price and the one mentioned by Shri Maniar is only Rs. 300 per sq.ft but if the Court had relied upon the same, the claimants would have got unjust benefit to the extent of Rs. 26 lacs. In other words, the evidence given by Shri Maniar before this Court is per se incorrect, false, dishonest and misleading. This is unbecoming of any Government registered valuer. Shri Maniar has completely glossed over the role and duty of a Government registered valuer. Appointment of any person as a Government registered valuer is bestowing recognition of expertise and integrity on that person. Such person is expected to discharge public duty. In one sense he is the appointee of the Government and therefore a public servant. It is on the basis of valuation report submitted by such person, not only the authorities would act but even the courts of law would readily respect the same as authentic unless rebutted. It is obvious that Shri Maniar in his quest to favour the claimants has indulged in acts unbecoming of any Government registered valuer or for that matter any qualified and practising Architect, Engineer, valuer or surveyor. It is seen that Shri Maniar pursued the matter on behalf of the claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer, but also before this Court. Thus, Shri Maniar virtually wore the shoes of claimants for obvious reasons, thereby completely overlooking the role and duty of any Government registered valuer. It is because of the act of commission and/or omission of Shri Maniar that this Court would have been mislead and persuaded to direct the State role out avoidable money from the public exchequer to the claimants. To my mind, the sole moto of Shri Maniar was to extract maximum compensation for the claimants. Obviously, his interest was in conflict with the calling he has had accepted. The conduct of Shri Maniar is highly depricable. For, he attempted to mislead this Court in arriving at a just adjudication. This amounts to a penal offence. In this view of the matter, I would think it appropriate to refer the case of Shri H.S. Maniar, Government registered valuer to the appropriate Government to take suitable corrective measures including to examine as to whether he should be allowed to practice a Government registered valuer in future. Because, I would also think it appropriate to refer his case to the Institute of Engineers, Institute of valuers, and Institute of surveyors with whom he is associated, for taking appropriate corrective action against him. Necessary action be taken by the concerned authorities including the Government at the earliest obviously after giving opportunity to Shri Maniar to show cause, if any. The proposed corrective action be taken by the concerned authorities not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Concerned authorities may also report compliance of the action taken by them within the above said period of six months to this Court". [2002(3) Bom.C.R. 442-43]

4. Mr. Korde learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the learned Judge has committed an error in virtually condemning the conduct of the appellant was penal offence without giving any notice or an opportunity whatsoever to the appellant to defend himself or to explain the correct position before the Court. Mr. Korde urged that valuation of each property is dependent on various factors like location, quality and State of constitution, present and potential user, surroundings etc. and in land acquisition proceedings the role of a valuer is to express his opinion as to what in the opinion of the valuer was the fair market price of the property under acquisition on the relevant date. The learned Counsel took us through the documentary evidence produced on record in order to show that the valuation made by the valuer cannot be said to be false or mala fide. Mr. Korde pointed out that the learned Judge has proceeded on the assumption that the appellant is appointed as Government valuer and he is discharging a public duty. He submitted that the appellant as a valuer by the Government and he has been merely registered as an approved valuer and therefore question of discharging any public duty simply does not arise. The learned Counsel urged that the appellant has based his valuation on the well known notions of the valuation and even assuming that the valuation is not ultimately found to be acceptable it cannot be inferred that the valuer wore the shoes of claimants as observed by the learned Judge. He urged that in land acquisition proceedings a valuer consulted by the claimants in proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer often gives evidence before the Court in reference application as well and in performing his professional duty of opining on fair valuation of property under acquisition in proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer as also before the Court, a valuer cannot be charged with dereliction of duty or wearing the shoes of the claimants or with overlooking the role and duty of a Government registered valuer solely on the ground that his valuation report is not accepted by the Court. In reply the learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated that he has instructions to submit to the orders of the Court. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 supported the arguments of Mr. Korde and submitted that the strictures/observations of the learned Judge against a valuer are not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, in our considered opinion, it is not possible to sustain various observations and remarks made by the learned Judge doubting the integrity of the appellant as a Government approved valuer and referring his case to various organisations to which he has been associated for last several years. The evidence of the appellant was recorded by Baam, J., on 8-2-2002. The appellant in his evidence produced the valuation report prepared as well as the certified copy of the registered deed of conveyance in respect of sale instances referred to by him i.e. CS No. 1784 of Mandavi Division dated 20-5-1987. In his evidence he has deposed about description of the property and also situation of the property and he has stated that the value of the property at the rate of Rs. 3000 per sq.ft. on the basis of sale instance of S. No. 1784 of Mandavi Division which was sold for total consideration of Rs. 26 lacs on 29-5-1987. He was cross-examined by the learned AGP. It was noted by the learned Judge that the cross-examination is very cryptic and does not even touch the important aspects of his evidence. The evidence of the appellant has practically gone unchallenged. The learned Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the gross market value of the property was Rs. 2700 per sq.ft. and not Rs. 3000 per sq.ft. and he has further deducted therefrom 20% for various reasons indicated earlier. This finding of the learned judge is not challenged before us. However, upon consideration of the entire material on record we think that the observations made by the learned Judge that the evidence of the appellant is false and misleading are not justified. There is no gain saying that the valuation of immovable properties is not an exact science and that determination of value is an inquiry relating to a subject abounding in uncertainties, and involving more than ordinary guess work and it would be rather unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for conclusions arrived at and that valuation report and evidence of expert witness like the appellant in land acquisition reference proceedings, is merely evidence of opinion as to the fair market value of the property under acquisition. In the present case the Land Acquisition Officer of the opinion that the market value of the property was Rs. 3150 per sq.ft whereas the Commissioner fixed it at Rs. 1800 per sq.ft and ultimately in reference the price of the property was fixed at Rs. 2150 per sq.ft. In the present case the appellant had practically no opportunity to explain fully the basis of his valuation. The directions issued by the learned Judge are of drastic nature and involve serious implications including deprivation of the licence to practice as a registered approved valuer. No notice was given to the appellant before passing the order nor any opportunity was given to explain the report submitted by him. In our opinion, it is not possible to agree with the view taken by the learned Judge that there was deliberate attempt to mislead the Court on the part of the appellant. In the result we allow the appeal and direct that observations of the learned Judge in paras 11 and 16 reproduced above be expunged from the judgment. No order as to costs.