Shri Keshaorao Deorao Patil vs State Of Mah.Thr.Collector ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3152 Bom

                                               1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No.  473 of 2005

Appellants              :          Keshaorao Deorao Patil, aged about 76

                                   years, Occ: CultivAtor, resident of Digras,

                                   District Yavatmal

                                   versus

Respondents             :          1)  State of Maharashtra, through

                                   Collector, Yavatmal

                                   2) Sub-Divisional Officer and Land 

                                   Acquisition Officer, Darwha, District 

                                   Yavatmal

                                   3) The Executive Engineer, Telecom

                                   Co-axier Installation Division, Nagpur



Shri A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for appellant 

Shri S. B. Bissa, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2 

Dr R. S. Sunderam, Advocate for respondent  no. 3

                                   --------

First Appeal No. 474 of 2005

Appellants : Keshaorao Deorao Patil, aged about 76

years, Occ: CultivAtor, resident of Digras,

District Yavatmal

versus

Respondents : 1) State of Maharashtra, through

Collector, Yavatmal

2) Sub-Divisional Officer and Land

Acquisition Officer, Darwha, District

Yavatmal

3) The Executive Engineer, Telecom

Co-axier Installation Division, Nagpur

Shri A. Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for appellant

Ms. T. Khan, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2

Dr R. S. Sunderam, Advocate for respondent no. 3

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 14th June 2017

Oral Judgment

1. These appeals question legality and correctness of the judgments

and order dated 10th March 2005 passed respectively in LAC No. 1284 of 2004

and LAC No. 1285 of 2004 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha.

2. I have heard Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for the appellant and

Shri S. B. Bissa with Ms Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleaders

for respondents no. 1 and 2 in both the appeals. None appears for respondent

no. 3 though served. I have also gone through record of the case.

3. The points which arises for my determination are as under:

(1) Whether the compensation granted to the appellant @ Rs. 160/-

per square foot is just and proper ?

(2) What order ?

4. The plots of land admeasuring 1005 and 1240 square feet situated

at Digras, District Yavatmal being Plots No. 11/2, 2, ½-A and ½-B, Nazul sheet

No. 4-D owned and possessed by the appellant were compulsorily acquired by

respondent no. 1 for the construction of building for the use of respondent no.

3. It was the contention of the appellant that these plots of land were situated in

the heart of city of Digras, had a commercial value as it was surrounded by

commercial buildings and office buildings and were also abutting the State

Highway (Nagpur-Nanded Highway) and, therefore, ought to have been valued

at the rate which was prevalent at the relevant time for such property situated

in the city of Digras. According to the appellant, value of the plots ought to

have been considered to be @ Rs. 200/- per square foot and not at Rs. 150/- as

found by the learned Civil Judge, SD, Darwha in the impugned judgments and

orders.

4. The evidence available on record, particularly the sale instances

vide Exhibits 24. 25, 27 and 28 clearly show that the prevailing market rate of

the acquired property at the relevant time was Rs. 100/- to Rs. 333/- per square

foot. The evidence of witnesses of the appellant who were PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4

reasonably shows that the subject land was abutting the State Highway and had

commercial value, for it was surrounded by institutional and commercial

buildings. Its commercial potential has not been disproved by any evidence

brought on record by respondents. Cross-examination of these witnesses also

does not show that there is anything which could be considered as giving any

different indication about the actual value of the property. These facts as could

be seen from the report of Land Acquisition Officer, were also reasonably taken

to be established by the Land Acquisition Officer himself. That apart, learned

Civil Judge, Senior division has found them to have been reasonably established

on record. If this was so, there was no reason for the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division to suddenly reduce the value of the subject property and fix it at

Rs. 150/- per square foot. In these circumstances, learned CJSD ought to have

made an endeavour to draw a middle rate between highest and lowest which

could have been of Rs. 200/- per square foot. This is the rate at which

compensation has been demanded by the appellant and in my view, the

evidence on record does disclose that it is a reasonable expectation of the

appellant.

5. Accordingly, I find that the compensation ought to have been

awarded @ Rs. 200/- per square foot and such being not the case, the impugned

judgment and order to this extent need to be substituted by this judgment.

6. Appeal is allowed with costs. The enhanced compensation shall be

granted to the appellant @ Rs. 200/- per square foot instead of Rs. 150/- per

square foot for the acquired plots of the appellant admeasuring 1005 and 1240

square feet which comes to Rs. 4,49,000/-. The impugned judgments and order

are accordingly modified while remaining parts thereof are hereby confirmed.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi