Bombay High Court
Sarjerao Narsingrao Jadhav vs The State Of Mahrashtra And Anr on 12 July, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA45.2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.45 OF 2010
1. Shesherao Narsingrao Jadhav
Age : 70 years, Occu : Agril,
2. Subhash s/o. Narsingrao Jadhav
Age : 55 years, Occu. Agril,
Nos.1 & 2 R/o. Bhakaskheda, Tal. Udgir,
Dist. Latur .. APPELLANTS
( Orig. Claimants )
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
The Collector, Latur,
Dist. Latur. .. Respondent
..........
Mr A.N. Gaddime, Advocate h/f. Mr V.D. Gunale,
Advocate for appellants
Mr S.M. Ganachari, AGP for respondent / State
.............
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.46 OF 2010
1. Gunwant s/o. Narsingrao Jadhav
Age : 50 years, Occu : Agril,
2. Ashok s/o. Narsingrao Jadhav
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agril,
Nos.1 & 2 R/o. Bhakaskheda, Tal. Udgir,
Dist. Latur .. APPELLANTS
(Ori. Claimants)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
The Collector, Latur
Dist. Latur .. RESPONDENT
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 10:04:36 :::
2 FA45.2010
.......
Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for appellants
Mr S.M. Ganachari, AGP for respondent / State
............
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.47 OF 2010
Sarjerao Narsingrao Jadhav,
Age : 59 years, Occu : Agril,
R/o. Bhakaskheda, Tal. Udgir,
Dist. Latur .. APPELLANT
(Ori. Claimant)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
The Collector, Latur,
Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT
.......
Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for appellant
Mr S.M. Ganachari, AGP for respondent / State
............
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATE : JULY 12, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : -
1. The present appeals are filed challenging common
Judgment and Award passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, at Ahmedpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Reference
Court') on 17.08.2009 in L.A.R. No.2236/2001 (Old No.316/95) with
3 FA45.2010
L.A.R. No.2238/2001 (Old No.318/95) and L.A.R. No.2277/2001
(Old No.426/95).
2. The present appellants had filed the aforesaid reference
applications seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation as
was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter
'SLAO') towards the acquisition of the house properties owned by
them. Shri. Gunale, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants
brought to the notice of the Court that, in similar matters arising out
of the same acquisition proceedings, in some earlier appeals decided
by this Court (Coram: S.V. Gangapurwale, J.), the Court has remitted
back the matters to the Reference Court to decide it afresh by giving
due opportunities to the parties for leading proper evidence to
substantiate their claims. The copy of the said Judgment passed in
First Appeal No.1744/2013 along with the connected appeals on
20.08.2015 is placed on record.
3. The learned Counsel submitted that, in the present matters
also the Reference Court has rejected the reference applications and
has refused to enhance the amount of compensation on the sole
ground that the valuation report which was submitted by the
claimants and relied upon by the claimants was prepared by a private
4 FA45.2010
valuer and at the time of taking inspection and making valuation, the
said valuer has not given notice to the government authorities.
4. The learned Counsel invited my attention to para no.6 of
the Judgment in First Appeal No.1744/2013, which reads thus :
"The valuation report is placed on record of the
Reference Court. Even the valuer is examined to
prove the said report. The said report is solely
discarded on the ground that the notice to the
Government was not given before the inspection.
In fact, the evidence led by the valuer ought to
have been discussed in detail. It is only after
discussing the evidence and if the Reference Court
comes to the conclusion that, the valuation report
does not inspire confidence, then only the same
could have been discarded. In the written
statement the State had specifically stated that the
possession of the acquired house properties has
been taken after passing the award and making
payment to claimants. Whereas the award states
that, the possession was taken prior to notification
U/Sec.4 of the L. A. Act. Even the Reference
Court has failed to come to the conclusion as to
the exact date of possession. It does not appear
that, it is anybody's case that, the houses were
demolished in the year 1992 when the valuer
engaged by the present appellants is said to have
visited the house properties. The said aspect was
required to be discussed by the Reference Court
while considering valuation report and/or
discarding the same. In fact, case of present
appellants rest on the valuation report as far as
valuation of house properties is concerned and
that is the major claim of present appellants. As
far as sale deed is concerned, no doubt, it is after
the notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act, the same
is rightly discarded by the Reference Court,
because agreement of sale is required to be
proved in accordance with the provisions of the
5 FA45.2010
Evidence Act, which does not appear to have been
done so."
4. This Court, has, thus, held that the valuation report could
not have been outrightly rejected by the Reference Court merely on
the ground that, the private valuer has prepared the said report and
further that before preparing report or at the time of inspection the
valuer has not given notice to the government. For the reasons
recorded by this Court in the aforesaid Judgment, the present appeals
also deserve to be allowed on similar grounds.
5. Shri. Ganachari, learned AGP appearing for the State
pointed out that, the acquiring body has not been made party in the
present appeals, without whose presence no effective orders can be
passed.
6. Shri. Gunale submitted that, even before the Reference
Court the acquiring body was not party and as such in the appeal the
acquiring body has not been made respondent. The learned Counsel
submitted that, the claimants will add the acquiring body as a party
respondent before the Reference Court by making proper application
and seeking permission from the said Court.
6 FA45.2010
7. In view of the fact that, the matters have to be remitted
back, it does not materially affect whether the acquiring body is party
to the present appeals or not. Moreover, now the claimants have
undertaken to add the acquiring body as party - respondent before
the Reference Court. The acquiring body will, thus, have an
opportunity to resist the petitions and to adduce necessary evidence
on its behalf also. The appeals, therefore, stand allowed in the
aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. R & P be sent back to the Lower
Court immediately.
[ P.R. BORA ]
JUDGE
ggp
