Jagan Narayan Kadu vs Shantaram Mahadev Patil And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 794 Bom

                                                                     211-FA1182-2003.doc


 VRJ
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        FIRST APPEAL NO.1182 OF 2003
                                    WITH
                        FIRST APPEAL NO.1685 OF 2002
                                    WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4385 OF 2002
                                      IN
                        FIRST APPEAL NO.1685 OF 2002


 Jagan Narayan Kadu                                    ... Appellant
           V/s.
 Shantaram Mahadev Patil & Anr.                        ... Respondent

                                     WITH
                          FIRST APPEAL NO.1181 OF 2003

 The State of Maharashtra                              ... Appellant
            V/s.
 Pandurang Maruti Chavan                               ... Respondent


 Ms. Tanaya Goswami for the State.


                                   CORAM       : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                   DATED       : JANUARY 23, 2023
 P.C.:

 FIRST APPEAL NO.1181 OF 2003

1. The appeal arises out of impugned judgment and award dated 20th February, 2003 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nashik, partly allowing land reference granting the claimant amount of Rs.3,35,623/- towards enhanced

211-FA1182-2003.doc

compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of compensation till the date of realization.

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of issues involved are as under. Two city surveys i.e. City Survey No.424 ad-measuring 163.9 square meters and City Survey No.426 ad-measuring 350.3 square meters consisting of structure situated at Village Bhagur, Taluka and District Nashik were owned and possessed by the claimant. The said property was acquired for the purpose of erecting Swatantrya Veer Savarkar Smarak. Notification under section 4 was published on 3rd September, 1992 while notification under section 6 was published on 6 th February, 1993. On 31st March, 1993 the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared his award and fixed market price of the land and structure awarding total compensation of Rs.2,09,417/- for City Survey No.424 and Rs.4,82,455/- for City Survey No.426. Market price of the land was fixed at the rate of Rs.178 per square meter which comes to Rs.1,23,797 for City Survey No.474 and Rs.2,90,061 for City Survey No.426. The claimant received the amount under protest and filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

3. In support of the claim, the claimants relied on three sale instances. The State relied on one sale instance, however, the reference court relying on the rate granted in land reference No.153 of 1985 fixed market price on claimants land at Rs.270 per square meter. The said land reference was in relation to the adjacent property of the claimants' relying on value of the structure fixed at the rate of Rs.2,79,272 for survey No.424 and Rs.3,37,478 for survey No.426. The State has, therefore, filed

211-FA1182-2003.doc

present appeal.

4. The learned AGP for the State submitted that the appreciation of evidence by the reference Court was based on erroneous reading of the settled principles of Land Acquisition Act. According to her, the sale instance in relation to City Survey No.222 ad-measuring 109.29 square meter sold on 18th February, 1992 at Rs.15,000/- was required to be considered and, therefore, at the most market price of the acquired land could be Rs.178 per square meter.

5. On consideration of submissions made by the appellant, following points arise for consideration: (i) whether the reference Court has fixed Rs.270 per square meter for market price of the land based on value fixed in land reference No.153 of 1985; and

(ii) whether the market price of structure based on report was correct.

6. On perusal of the material on record, it appears that the sale instances filed by the claimant have been rightly discarded by the reference Court as the sale instances were 5 years, 3 years, 8 years prior to the date of notification under section 4.

7. The reference Court has rightly placed reliance on the market value fixed in land reference No.153 of 1985. The property which was subject matter of land reference No.153 of 1985 was adjacent to the acquired property. The market price fixed by the land reference Court in the said reference was Rs.270 and, therefore, in my opinion, the reference Court was justified in fixing market price of the claimant's property at Rs.270 per square meter.

211-FA1182-2003.doc

8. About the structure on City Survey No.424 and 426 are concerned, the valuer's report produced on record indicates that the value of the structure was shown at Rs.4,18,909 and Rs.56,217. The reference Court rightly held that the said amounts are exaggerated value of the structure and, therefore, reduced value shown in the report by one and half time to fix the valuer's report at Rs.2,79,272/- and Rs.3,37,478.

9. On the basis of market value of land and structure as referred above, corresponding values are granted by the reference Court in all directing the State to pay compensation amount of Rs.3,35,623/- to the claimant. Therefore, in my opinion, the market value of land being arrived on the basis of judgment of the reference Court in relation to adjacent land and the value of structure is fixed on the basis of valuer's report by deducting it one and half time, there is no perversity in the judgment, nor error of law.

10. For the aforesaid reason, on finding that there is no merit, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

11. The claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest, if already not withdrawn.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)