Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Ramkumaribai Shankarlal Chandak ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4178 Bom

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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