Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer, Nagur ... vs Smt. Meenabai Shripat Jemati And 3 ... on 6 September, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 1093 of 2016
Appellant : The Executive Engineer, Nagpur Medium
Project, Nagpur Division, VIDC, Nagpur
(at present, Nagpur Irrigation Division (N)
Nagpur)
versus
Respondents : 1) Smt Meenabai Shripat Jemati, aged
adult, Occ: Housewife, resident of Isapur,
Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur
2) Wasudev s/o Balaji Jemati, aged adult,
Occ: Agriculturist, resident of Isapur, Tahsil
Katol, District Nagpur
3) State of Maharashtra, through the Collector,
Nagpur
4) Special Land Acquisition Officer/S.D.O.,
Katol, District Nagpur
Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for appellant
Shri C. R. Najbile, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2
Shri M. A. Kadu, Pleader for respondents no. 3 and 4
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 9th September 2014 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 110 of 2003
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 nos. 207, 208, 209/(2/1) admeasuring 12,400 square feet
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 26) 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
