The Executive Engineer, Nagpur ... vs Shri Punjabrao S/O Anandrao Wagh ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6832 Bom

                                               1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No. 4 of 2017 

Appellant               :          The Executive Engineer,  Nagpur Medium

                                   Project, Nagpur Division, VIDC, Nagpur

                                   (at present, Nagpur Irrigation Division (N)

                                   Nagpur)

                                   versus

Respondents             :          1) Punjabrao son of Anandrao Wagh, aged 

adult, Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Isapur,

Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur

2) State of Maharashtra, through the Collector,

Nagpur

3) Special Land Acquisition Officer/S.D.O.,

Katol, District Nagpur

Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for appellant

Shri C. R. Najbile, Advocate for respondent no. 1

Shri M. A. Kadu, Asst. Govt. Pleader for respondents no. 2 and 3

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 6th September 2017

Oral Judgment

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. There is no need to call for Record and Proceedings as there

is no dispute about the material evidence relied upon by the Reference

Court while passing the impugned Award and thus, this appeal can be

disposed of on the basis of reflections of evidence appearing in the

impugned Award.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the

impugned Award, the following point arises for my determination:

Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference

Court is just and proper ?

4. The Reference Court while passing the impugned Award

dated 11th September 2014 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 290 of

2002 has considered the entire evidence brought on record by respondent

no. 1, but found that the evidence in the nature of the circular of the

Public Works Department dated 21.8.1998 cannot be relied upon as the

Government rates do not include the cost of amenities. The acquired

property in the present case is a house along with open space, being

house no. 175/55/1 admeasuring 49.98 square meter situated at mouza

Isapur, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. This house was one of the

properties compulsorily acquired for the purposes of Chikhli Nala Project.

This house was situated in the submergence area of the Government. The

Reference Court found that the determination of the value of the structure

and value of the open space done by the Land Acquisition Officer is on the

lower side and, therefore, the same was enhanced to Rs. 5500/- per

square meter for the built-up area and Rs. 300/- per square meter for the

open space. Since this is not acceptable to the appellant, the appellant is

before this Court in the present appeal.

5. The circular dated 21.8.1998 issued by the Public Works

Department shows the Government rate for the constructed property as

the house involved in the present case, to be of Rs. 5500/- per square

meter. The approved valuer P.W. 2 found the rate of the structure as of

Rs. 6500/- per square meter. Thus, as rightly observed by the Reference

Court, in the valuation report (exhibit 35) submitted by the approved

valuer as no rates are prescribed on the basis of type of construction and

no details are given about the nature of construction; material used as

well as area of the construction and open plot and other necessary details,

the evidence of the approved valuer cannot be accepted for determination

of the true market value of the acquired property. On the other hand,

PWD circular is quite clear; is in detail and serves as a guide to the Court

to arrive at correct determination of the market value of the property. In

LAC No. 281 of 2002, decided on 2.5.2014, the rate prescribed in PWD

circular which was of about Rs. 5500/- per square meter, has been relied

upon by the Reference Court. In the present case also, the Reference

Court has mentioned about such reliance being placed upon it for the

purpose of determination of the validity of the rates given in the PWD

circular in other matters by the Reference Court. This was the additional

reason for the Reference Court to determine the market value of the

constructed area to be at Rs. 5500/- per square meter. I do not find any

illegality or perversity in such approach of the Reference Court, In fact,

the findings recorded by the Reference Court are based on the evidence

available on record and there is no evidence brought on record or pointed

out by the appellant before this Court to arrive at different conclusion. For

the open space surrounding this house, I do not think that there is any

scope for making interference with the findings recorded in this regard by

the Reference Court. The Reference Court, it is seen, has considered

existence of such facilities as ration shop, post office, electricity, Gram

Panchayat, primary education etc. and other factors like situation of

village Isapur on the State highway between Katol and Saoner and sale

instances of the lands in nearby vicinity, and found that cost of open

plots in a village like Isapur cannot be lower than Rs. 300/- per square

meter and, therefore, it was also found by the Reference Court that value

of Rs. 100/- per square meter determined for open plot by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer was on very lower side. The reasons given by the

Reference Court are logical and based upon material available on record.

Therefore, I find that value of the open space surrounding the acquired

house was of Rs. 300/- per square meter and it has been rightly found to

be so by the Reference Court. In the circumstances, I find that the

compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and proper. There is

no merit in the appeal. The point is answered accordingly.

6. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their

own costs. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited

in this Court by the appellant.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi