Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Anusaya Fakira Sarkate & Another on 22 August, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
fa.690.06.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.690 OF 2006
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Through Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No.2,
Akola. .... Appellant
-- Versus -
01] Anusaya Fakira Sarkate,
Aged - Adult, Occ. Cultivator,
R/o Pangartati, Tq. Patur,
Dist. Akola.
02] The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Akola. .... Respondents
Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
None for Respondent No.1.
Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : AUGUST 22, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
This appeal challenges the judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court (3rd Ad-hoc Additional District
Judge, Akola) in Land Acquisition Case No.86/2000. By the said
award, reference was partly allowed and the market price of the
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:49:06 :::
fa.690.06.jud 2
house construction came to be fixed at Rs.60,000/-. The claimant
was held entitled to 30% solatium, 12% interest on enhanced
compensation, 9% interest for initial one year and 15% interest
per annum for the subsequent years till realization. Being
aggrieved by the judgment and award, acquiring body has
preferred this appeal.
02] The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be
stated in brief as under :
i. Appellant had undertaken construction of Vishwamitra
Project at village Pangartati, Tahsil Patur, District
Akola. Claimant was owner of plot and house bearing
No.17, admeasuring 1744.64 square meters with
structure standing on the plot admeasuring 631.39
square meters. The plot-cum-house owned by
claimant was to be acquired for the construction of
the above said project.
ii. On 08/01/1996, notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act' for short) was issued for acquiring the plot
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:49:06 :::
fa.690.06.jud 3
and the house belonging to the claimant. It was
followed by notification under Sections 6 & 9 of the
Act. Land Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry
and assessed compensation at the rate of Rs.15,278/-
for the land and Rs.30,929/- for the structure. Having
found the compensation determined by Land
Acquisition Officer as inadequate, claimant filed
reference under Section 18 of the Act before the
Reference Court.
iii. According to the claimant, her land was an irrigated
land having black soil and at the time of acquisition,
cost of land was Rs.40/- per square meter. She
assessed difference of amount of compensation for
the land and the structure to Rs.1,49,405/-.
iv. Appellant and respondent no.2 (respondent no.2 and
respondent no. 1 respectively in the reference)
resisted the claim vide written statements [Exhibits
10 & 19]. Their defence was of total denial.
According to respondents, following the fundamental
principles, Land Acquisition Officer has awarded
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:49:06 :::
fa.690.06.jud 4
compensation. The same was just and fair. They
prayed for dismissal of the reference.
v. On rival contentions of the parties, Reference Court
framed issues at Exh.11. Claimant examined herself
and Rameshwar Junekar [PW-2], Civil Engineer and
Planner, who valued the land and the structure.
Respondents did not examine any witness in rebuttal.
vi. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the
claimant and relying upon the valuation report given
by Rameshwar Junekar [PW-2], Reference Court fixed
market price of house construction at Rs.60,000/-.
The other consequential benefits were also granted to
the claimant and reference was partly allowed. This
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is
assailed in the instant appeal.
03] Heard Shri A.B. Patil, learned Counsel for appellant
and Ms. H.N. Jaipurkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent no.2. None for respondent no.1.
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:49:06 :::
fa.690.06.jud 5
04] Learned Counsel for appellant raises two fold
contentions (i) description of house clearly indicates that it was a
temporary construction and (ii) the said house was 70 to 80
years old as admitted by the claimant. Learned Counsel submits
that considering the age of the house and the nature of
construction, compensation determined by the Land Acquisition
Officer was just and fair.
05] With the assistance of the learned Counsel for
appellant, this Court has gone through the impugned judgment
and award and also depositions of claimant - Anusayabai [PW-1]
and valuer - Rameshwar Junekar [PW-2]. It can be seen from the
evidence of Anusayabai [PW-1] that she is the owner of the
House No.17, admeasuring 631.39 square meters. She stated
that price of the plot is at Rs.40/- per square meter and
according to her, she is entitled to claim Rs.69,784/- towards the
cost of plot and Rs.1,26,278/- towards structure thereon. Upon
deducting the amount of compensation received by her, she
claimed Rs.1,49,405 with consequential benefits.
06] Rameshwar Junekar [PW-2] was a Civil Engineer and
Planner. At the request of claimant, he visited the house in
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:49:06 :::
fa.690.06.jud 6
question, measured the same and prepared valuation report as
per the rates given in C.S.R. It is stated by PW-2 that the house
was constructed in the year 1960 and the description of plot
given by him in the report would indicate that the construction
was temporary in nature. The valuation of house, according to
PW-2, was Rs.1,26,200/-. PW-2 was cross-examined in extenso.
Nothing could be elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve
the valuation of the property made by him. Considering the
depreciation value, Reference Court deducted 50% of the
amount valued by the valuer and fixed market value of the
house at Rs.60,000/-. Though she stated that house in question
was 70 to 80 years old at the time of acquisition, she no where
admitted that because of age of the house, its market value has
been adversely affected.
07] In the above background, Reference Court was
justified in subtracting 50% of the depreciation value and fixing
the market price to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. The compensation
awarded by the Reference Court is just, fair and proper. As such,
no interference is warranted in this appeal. Hence, the following
order :
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:49:06 :::
fa.690.06.jud 7
ORDER
I. First Appeal No.690/2006 stands dismissed.
II. No costs.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain, J)
