Executive Engineer, Nagpur ... vs Khushal S/O Gangaram Bagde And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9595 Bom

                                                  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

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

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

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