Vidarbha Irrigation Development ... vs Himmat Namdeo Jadhao And 2 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 4478 Bom

 fa182.06.J.odt                            1



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


                        FIRST APPEAL NO.182 OF 2006


          Vidarbha Irrigation Development
          Corporation, through Executive
          Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division
          No.2, Akola.                                      ....... APPELLANT

                                   ...V E R S U S...

 1]       Himmat Namdeo Jadhao,
          Aged - Adult, Occ: Cultivator.

 2]       Manohar Namdeo Jadhao,
          Aged - Adult, Occ: Cultivator.

          Both R/o. Bidgaon, Tq. Murtijapur,
          Dist. Akolal

 3]       The State of Maharashtra through
          the Collector, Akola,
          Tq. & Dist. Akola.                                 ....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Appellant.
          Shri M.A. Kadu, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

          DATE:                th
                            13    JULY, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT



 1]               This appeal is preferred by the acquiring body taking

an exception to the judgment and award passed by 2 nd Ad-hoc

Additional District Judge, Akola on 18.11.2005 in Land

Acquisition Case No.2/2000.

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

Respondent No.1 herein was the owner of the Plot

No.9/2 admeasuring 169 sq. mtr. with standing house structure

thereon admeasuring 129 sq. mtr. By virtue of notification issued

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, in March, 1995, the

said plot came to be acquired by the State. As per the award

passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21.04.1997, the

compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. was awarded to

open plot and Rs.813/- per sq. mtr. was awarded to the

constructed house.

3] Being not satisfied with the said amount of

compensation, the respondent No.1 approached the Reference

Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

In support of his case, respondent No.1 examined himself and led

the evidence of Valuer Shri Ramchandra Junekar.

4] On appreciation of their evidence, the Reference

Court was pleased to hold that the compensation awarded at the

rate of Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. for open plot was reasonable and fair.

Against the said finding and order of the Reference Court,

respondent No.1 has not preferred any appeal or cross-objection.

Hence, it has become final.

5] However, by the impugned judgment and order the

Reference Court enhanced the compensation for the construction

house from Rs.813/- per sq. mtr. to Rs.1434/- per sq. mtr. and

thereby awarded additional compensation of Rs.80,154/-.

6] Being aggrieved thereby, this instant appeal is

preferred by the acquiring body i.e. V.I.D.C.

7] The submission of learned counsel for appellant in

this appeal is that the expert valuer of Shri Junekar has admitted

in cross-examination that the acquired house of respondent No.1

was in a kaccha construction. Respondent No.1 has also not

produced any receipt regarding purchase of building materials.

Despite that, as observed by the Reference Court itself,

Shri Junekar has given the rates of the work in quality and unit,

prevailing at the time for R.C.C. construction. Moreover it is urged

that, as admitted by respondent No.1 himself, his house was

constructed in the year 1974, and therefore, as it was an old

construction, Learned Reference Court has therefore, committed

an error in enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.813/-

per sq. mtr. to Rs.1434/- per sq. mtr.

8] In view of this submission, the only point, which

arises for my determination is, whether Reference Court was

justified in enhancing the amount of compensation for constructed

house from Rs.813/- to Rs.1434/- per sq. mtr?

9] It may be true that the valuer Shri Junekar has

admitted in his cross-examination that the acquired house of

respondent No.1 was of a kaccha construction. However, as

observed by Reference Court, for considering the market value of

the said house, Shri Junekar has applied the prevailing rates for

R.C.C. construction and opined that its market value can be

Rs.2,49,107/-. Taking into consideration this fact and also the fact

that the house was constructed in the year 1972, it can be seen

that the Trial Court has not upheld the valuation given by

Shri Junekar in toto, but reduced it and only awarded 75% of the

said valuation, which according to Reference Court comes to

Rs.1,85,000/-.

10] Hence, considering the reasoning given by the

Reference Court and the marginal increase granted in the amount

of compensation towards the house, I do not find that any reason

is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment and award.

As the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is legal and

correct, this appeal holds no merits and stands dismissed, with no

order as to costs.

JUDGE

NSN