Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Khushal Gulabchandchand Chandak ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4329 Bom

                                                                                                                   fa-j 149-06.odt
                                                               1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2006

          Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
          Through its Executive Engineer,
          Lower Wardha Project, 
          Wardha.                                  ....... APPELLANT.
                                         
                ...V E R S U S...

1]        Khushal Gulabchand Chandak
          Aged about 52 years, Occ.: Agriculturist
          R/o Chinchpur, Tq. Tiwasa
          District-Amravati.  

2]        The State of Maharashtra
          Through the Collector, Amravati

3]        The Special Land Acquisition  
          Upper Wardha Project No.4,
          District-Amravati                                         .......RESPONDENTS.
                                                             
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Shri V. G. Palshikar, Advocate for Appellant.
         Shri J. J. Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1.   
         Shri. M. A. Kadu, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 & 3.  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          CORAM:  DR. (SMT.) SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

DATE : 11 th JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

By this appeal, the appellant which is an acquiring body, is

challenging the judgment and order dated 26.10.2005 passed by Civil

Judge, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case

fa-j 149-06.odt

No. 201 of 1999, thereby granting additional compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondents for acquisition of their house property.

2] Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:

Respondent no.1 was the owner of the residential house

bearing old Grampanchayat house no. 133 (new house no.134),

situated at village Chinchur. The house was consisting of drawing room,

dining room, kitchen, three store rooms, bed room, bath room, latrine,

veranda, water tank, ota, gallery and basement etc. and totally

admeasuring 175.75 square meter. It was also consisting of dispensary

cum consulting room. The entire house had electric and water tap

fittings. Thus, according to respondent no.1, the market value of the

said house cannot be less than Rs.5,00,000/-. After acquisition of the

said house in pursuance of the Notification issued under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act and published in 1993, the Special Land

Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.1,55,059/- only. Being

aggrieved thereby, respondent no.1 has preferred reference under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Trial Court, seeking

enhancement of compensation.

3] This petition came to be resisted by the appellant herein

fa-j 149-06.odt

contending that that amount of compensation as awarded by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper and no case is

made out for enhancement of compensation.

4] In support of his case, respondent no.1 has examined

himself and three witnesses. As against it, appellant led evidence of

Vijay Vinayakarao Kashikar and Meghshyam Vikram Dhongli, who are

government valuers. On appreciation of the evidence, the Reference

Court found that the market value of acquired house consisting of land

needs to be enhanced to Rs.3,55,059/- and accordingly awarded

additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5] This judgment of the Reference Court is the subject matter

of the appeal. In this appeal, I have heard learned counsel for appellant

and respondent no.1. On their rival submissions, the only issue arising

for my consideration is whether the Reference Court was justified in

awarding the additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-?

6] In the instant case, respondent no.1 has come before the

Court with a specific case that his house was double storied and it was a

pakka construction, having drawing room, dinning room, gallery,

fa-j 149-06.odt

basement room etc. It was also having a consulting dispensary. This

evidence of respondent no.1 is fully supported with photograph of the

acquired house, which is produced on record and it clearly goes to show

that the house of respondent no.1 was in pakka construction and

consisting of 10 rooms, with basement. It was also comprising of

ground plus first floor. In view thereof, there appears some substance in

the contention of respondent no.1 that the compensation awarded by

Special Land Acquisition Officer was not just and adequate.

7] This inference can also be drawn from the assessment of

the valuation made by the government expert and which is produced on

record at Exh.62. He has also assessed the costs of construction of

respondent no.1's house at Rs.2,50,000/-. Thus, if the valuer of the

appellant is quoting the costs of Rs.2,50,000/- then it follows that the

compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition officer at

1,55,059/- was not just and adequate amount of compensation.

8] In this respect, the Reference Court has also considered the

evidence of Nandkumar Vishwanath Tiwaskar, who is examined by

respondent no.1 to prove the valuation of the acquired house.

According to him, market value of the said house can be about

Rs.6,00,000/-. Even if the said market value is not accepted, as it is

fa-j 149-06.odt

definitely on higher side, as he is a witness of the claimant, having

regard to the rate of C.S.R. and other instances of the sale, which are

discussed by the Reference Court in its judgment, in my considered

opinion, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court cannot be

considered as exorbitant and excessive so as to warrant interference

therein. Thus, the market value of Rs.3,55,059/- as assessed by the

Reference Court being just, legal and correct, no interference is

warranted therein. The appeal therefore, holds no merits and hence

stands dismissed.

JUDGE

RGIngole