Madhavrao Gondirao Awagan vs The State Of Mah. And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 8396 Bom

        J-fa803.04.odt                                                                                                     1/4 


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


                                      FIRST APPEAL No.803 OF 2004


        Madhavrao Govindrao Awagan,
        Aged about 42 years,
        Occupation : Cultivator,
        R/o. Mokh, Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.                                      :      APPELLANT

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    The State of Maharashtra,
               
        2.    The Collector, Yavatmal,
                District Yavatmal.

        3.    The Land Acquisition Officer,
                Benefitted Zone at Yavatmal,
                Distt. Yavatmal.                                                      :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri Sachin W. Sambre, Advocate for the Appellant.
        Shri B.M. Lonare, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondents.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

rd DATE : 3 NOVEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and

correctness of the judgment and order dated 20 th December, 2003,

rendered in Land Acquisition Case No.30/1994 by the Court of Civil

J-fa803.04.odt 2/4

Judge, Senior Division, Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal on the ground that it

grants inadequate compensation.

2. Two houses along with open plots were compulsorily

acquired for the purposes of Arunavati Project by the State Government.

Revised Section 4 Land Acquisition Act notification came to be published

on 4.3.1989 and 14.3.1989. As the compensation granted by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, the appellant filed an

application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the

matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of his claim regarding grant of

fair and just compensation. Section 18 application was decided by the

Reference Court on merit. It found that the compensation granted by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer was on the lesser side and, therefore,

partly allowing the reference application, it held that the market value of

the two houses along with surrounding open plots was of Rs.5,09,930/- .

Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order, the reference

application was partly granted together with all statutory benefits. Not

being satisfied with the same, the appellant is before this Court in the

present appeal.

3. I have heard Shri Sachin W. Sambre, learned counsel for the

appellant and Shri B.M. Lonare, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for the respondents-State. I have gone through the impugned judgment

and order and the record of the case.

J-fa803.04.odt 3/4

4. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is :

Whether the compensation granted by the Reference Court is just and proper ?

5. It is seen from the impugned judgment and order that the

Reference Court has not completely discarded the evidence of valuer,

PW 2 Abhay Patil (Exh.-45) insofar as the method of valuation is

concerned. However, the Reference Court, did not accept the valuation

carried out by the valuer separately for different items mentioned in the

valuation report at Exh.-47 and substituted by its own imagination the

figures of the valuation so carried out by the expert valuer. The Civil

Court not being an expert in the matter, cannot, on the basis of some

surmises or imagination, substitute its own valuation for the valuation

scientifically done by an expert valuer. It would be a different matter if

some scientific evidence is available to counter the valuation made by

such an expert. In the present case, no such scientific evidence is

available on record and, therefore, the substitution of the figures of the

valuation done by the Reference Court would have to be held to be

illegal and perverse, which I do so. Similar, is the view taken by this

Court in the case of First Appeal No.47/1998, decided on 5 th October,

2016, wherein, the acquired house property was situated just adjacent to

the house properties involved in the present case.

6. In the circumstances, the valuation report vide Exh.-47 of the

J-fa803.04.odt 4/4

expert valuer would have to be accepted as it is. The valuation of the

house properties together with the open lands has been made by the

valuer to be at Rs.17,09,924/-. This would be the market value of the

acquired properties and the appellant would be entitled to receive

compensation for the acquired properties of Rs.17,09,924/- together with

all statutory benefits granted by the Reference Court at same rates as are

granted by the Reference Court. The appeal deserves to be allowed. The

point is answered accordingly.

7. The appeal is allowed.

8. It is declared that the appellant is entitled to receive

compensation of Rs.17,09,924/- it being the true market value of the

acquired properties together with all statutory benefits granted by the

Tribunal on the same rates on this enhanced compensation.

9. The impugned judgment and award stand modified in the

above terms.

10. Additional Court fee shall be paid within one month from the

date of order.

11. Parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE okMksns