Bombay High Court
Pavan Ghanshyam Chandak vs State Of Mah. Thru. Collector And 2 Ors on 5 February, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:1943
-1- 202.FA.02.2008.Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 02 OF 2008
APPELLANT : Pavan S/o. Ghanshyam Chandak,
Aged about 30 years, Occupation
Cultivator, Permanent R/o. Mirzapur
(Neri), Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha,
Now at present Resident of Arvi,
Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through
Collector, Wardha.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
& Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Arvi,
District Wardha.
3. Executive Engineer, Vidarbha
Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal,
Wardha.
***************************************************************
Ms. Varsha Y. Wasu, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. H.D. Dubey, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Ms. A.S. Athalye, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
***************************************************************
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : 5th FEBRUARY, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT
. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and decree
passed by learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Wardha
(for short "the Reference Court"), whereby the reference filed by
-2- 202.FA.02.2008.Judgment.odt
the appellant/claimant was partly allowed and the compensation
was enhanced.
02] BACKGROUND FACTS:
The house property bearing No.97/2, area 206 sq. mtr.
and the open plot of land, admeasuring 359 sq. mtrs., situated at
mouza Mirzapur, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha were owned by the
appellant. The property was acquired for the purpose of the
Submergence Area of the Lower Wardha Project. The notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published
on 6th September, 1998. The award was passed on 8 th January,
2001. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation
for the open plot @ Rs.91/- per sq. mtr. The Land Acquisition
Officer awarded Rs.1,18,223/- for 206 sq. mtr. constructed area and
Rs.500/- for well. In the reference filed by the appellant, the
compensation for the construction was enhanced from
Rs.1,18,223/- to Rs.1,60,000/- and for the well, from Rs.500/- to
Rs.19,500/-. In respect of the open plot of land, there was no
enhancement by the Reference Court. Being aggrieved by this
judgment and decree, the appellant has come before this Court in
appeal.
-3- 202.FA.02.2008.Judgment.odt
03] According to the appellant, the rate of the open plot was
Rs.250/- per sq. mtr. According to him, the cost of the constructed
area was Rs.3,99,269/- and the valuation of the well was
Rs.1,32,150/-. The appellant contended that neither the Land
Acquisition Officer nor the Reference Court took the sale instances
of the similarly situated open plots into consideration. The written
statement was filed by the respondents. According to the
respondents, the compensation determined by the Land
Acquisition Officer was just, proper, and reasonable. It was
contended that the enhancement sought for was excessive and
exorbitant.
04] I have heard Ms. Varsha Y. Wasu, learned advocate for
the appellant, Mr. H.D. Dubey, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1
and 2 and Ms. A.S. Athalye, learned advocate for respondent No.3-
Acquiring Body. Perused the record and proceedings.
05] In view of the facts and circumstances, following point
falls for my determination:
"Whether the enhancement granted by the Reference
Court was just, proper, and reasonable ?"
-4- 202.FA.02.2008.Judgment.odt
06] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
decision rendered by the Reference Court in LAC No.376/2001 of
the same village, dated 24th April, 2006, was relied upon to
substantiate the enhancement in respect of the open plot of land.
Learned advocate submitted that the Reference Court has failed to
consider this judgment. Learned advocate submitted that the plot
in the said judgment bearing No.124 was situated in the vicinity of
the plot in this appeal. Learned advocate pointed out that the
appeal filed by the Acquiring Body against this judgment and order
passed by the Reference Court was withdrawn. Learned advocate
submitted that the Reference Court ought to have recorded the
reasons for not considering this judgment. As far as this aspect is
concerned, learned advocate for respondent No.3-Acquiring Body
submitted that the appeal filed against the judgment and order of
the Reference Court at Exh.41 was withdrawn.
07] The Reference Court maintained the rate of
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.91/-
per sq. mtr. The Reference Court has failed to consider the
evidence of AW-1 as well as the evidence of the expert witness. The
Reference Court has also disbelieved the valuation report
submitted by the Engineer of the Acquiring Body.
-5- 202.FA.02.2008.Judgment.odt
08] The question that needs to be addressed in this case is
whether the Reference Court was justified in not considering this
judgment at Exh.41. In my view, the Reference Court has
committed a grave error in excluding this judgment from
consideration. The Acquiring Body has admitted this judgment
and, ultimately, the rate awarded @ Rs.120/- per sq. mtr. in respect
of the open plot. The open plot in the judgment at Exh.41 and in
this appeal are not only situated in the same village but also
situated in the same locality. In my view, the Reference Court
ought to have taken this judgment into consideration. The
acquisition was a compulsory acquisition. The Reference Court
ought to have recorded reasons for rejecting the judgment at
Exh.41. Even if the evidence of the expert examined by the
appellant is kept out of consideration, in my view, in this case the
appellant would be entitled to get compensation in respect of the
open plot of land @ Rs.120/- per sq. mtr. In my view, in this
appeal, the claimant is entitled to get compensation in respect of
the open plot of land @ Rs.120/- per sq. mtr.
09] Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
original report submitted by the Engineer of the Acquiring Body
after carrying out the inspection on the spot was corrected by the
-6- 202.FA.02.2008.Judgment.odt
Superior Officer. Learned advocate submitted that, on account of
this, the said report was discarded. Learned advocate submitted
that the report of valuation prepared by PW-2 was on the basis of
the CSR of the relevant year. Learned advocate submitted that,
considering the nature and quality of construction, the Reference
Court ought to have granted enhancement at the rate claimed by
the appellant. Learned advocate for the Acquiring Body submitted
that the report submitted by the Engineer after carrying out the
inspection was not changed in such a manner to create doubt about
its veracity. It is pointed out that the cost of construction, arrived at
Rs.93,319/-, was corrected to Rs.92,370/-. It is seen that the Land
Acquisition Officer did not take this report into consideration and
awarded the compensation of Rs.1,18,223/- for the structure. It was
enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.1,60,000/-.
10] It is to be noted that in the report of the valuer, there is
no specific mention of the date and year of the CSR. No reason or
explanation has been placed on record for the failure to mention
this fact in the report as well as for the non-production of the same
at the time of the evidence. In my view, the production of CSR of
the relevant year was necessary to substantiate the contention. It is
true that the report was prepared after an actual inspection and
-7- 202.FA.02.2008.Judgment.odt
survey of the construction. It is stated by the valuer that the cost of
construction was arrived at by making necessary deductions on the
basis of the CSR for the relevant year. In my view, failure to
produce the CSR or the plausible explanation for non-production
is against the appellant. The Reference Court, after considering the
nature of construction and other factors, has enhanced the
compensation in respect of the structure as well as the well. On
consideration of the evidence afresh, I do not see any reason to find
fault with this finding recorded by the Reference Court.
11] In this appeal, the appellant has made out a case for
enhancement of the compensation of open plot @ Rs.120/- per sq.
mtr. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative to the
extent of the open plot of land. As such, the appeal is partly
allowed.
12] The appellant is entitled to get the compensation in
respect of the open plot of land, admeasuring 359 sq. mtr. @
Rs.120/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty) per sq. mtr. The
amount of difference with accrued interest and other benefits as
awarded by the Reference be deposited in this Court within four
months.
-8- 202.FA.02.2008.Judgment.odt
13] The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No
order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(G. A. SANAP, J.)
Vijay
Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/02/2024 14:46:54
