2010 Supreme(SC) 1077

2010 (7) Supreme 992
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Prabhakar Raghunath Patil & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2817-18 of 2005
with
Civil Appeal No. 2819 of 2005
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 2820-2821 of 2005
Decided on : 11-11-2010

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 4- Acquisition of lands of appellants-claimants as also for structures standing thereon by the State of Maharashtra by issuing a notification-Appeals by appellants-claimants praying for higher compensation -In so far as opinion of expert is concerned, he had not given any specific evidence as to what was the age of the structure when it was notified for acquisition- Without making an enquiry with regard to the age of structure which was acquired, it would be difficult to assess the valuation –Hence expert was not justified in not making an assessment with regard to age of the structure- He had faulted on the basic principle of assessment of valuation of a construction-Evidence of expert, held not reliable- Compensation as determined by Reference Court for the plot containing the structures was on the lower side- High Court, while referring to oral evidence adduced by expert, had stated that fine condition of the structures and the superior quality of materials used for construction of the same was beyond doubt- Despite the ambiguity surrounding age of structures, condition and quality of building had never been called into question- Hence compensation awarded in the instant case held liable to be raised- Margin of error in comparing Schedule rates for construction of buildings in the same district would be lesser than in attempting to use future sale transactions as exemplars- The Schedule Rates cover costs of construction in the entire district, thus factoring any sudden spurt in increase of land prices owing to acquisition in the area- Moreover, the quality of structures stands testimony of the fact that the building possesses considerable value, notwithstanding the fact that its age has not been correctly ascertained-Therefore, the cost of construction, which would be admittedly lower in 1983 than in 1991, must also be juxtaposed with the depreciation that would have accrued to the structures owing to wear and tear over a period of 8 years-Deduction of 60 per cent from the said valuation of the cost of construction in 1991 held appropriate- Compensation of ‘ 1700 per square meter arrived for the structure-Appeals allowed partly to the extent of the valuation fixed with regard to the compensation payable in respect of the structure which was acquired under the notification for acquisition raising it from ‘ 1,200 per square meter to ‘ 1700 per square meter (Paras 10 to 13)

       Facts of the Case :

        Lands of appellants-claimants as also structures standing thereon were acquired herein in the instant case by the State of Maharashtra by issuing a notification. Present Appeals have been filed by appellants-claimants praying for higher compensation.

       Findings of the Court :

        In so far as opinion of expert is concerned, he had not given any specific evidence as to what was the age of the structure when it was notified for acquisition. Without making an enquiry with regard to the age of structure which was acquired, it would be difficult to assess the valuation .Hence expert was not justified in not making an assessment with regard to age of the structure. He had faulted on the basic principle of assessment of valuation of a construction. Evidence of expert was hence held not reliable. Compensation as determined by Reference Court for the plot containing the structures was on the lower side. High Court, while referring to oral evidence adduced by expert, had stated that fine condition of the structures and the superior quality of materials used for construction of the same was beyond doubt. Despite the ambiguity surrounding age of structures, condition and quality of building had never been called into question. Hence compensation awarded in the instant case held liable to be raised. Margin of error in comparing Schedule rates for construction of buildings in the same district would be lesser than in attempting to use future sale transactions as exemplars- The Schedule Rates cover costs of construction in the entire district, thus factoring any sudden spurt in increase of land prices owing to acquisition in the are. Moreover, the quality of structures stands testimony of the fact that the building possesses considerable value, notwithstanding the fact that its age has not been correctly ascertained.Therefore, the cost of construction, which would be admittedly lower in 1983 than in 1991, must also be juxtaposed with the depreciation that would have accrued to the structures owing to wear and tear over a period of 8 years. Deduction of 60 per cent from the said valuation of the cost of construction in 1991 was held appropriate. Compensation of ‘ 1700 per square meter was arrived for the structure. Appeals were allowed partly to the extent of the valuation fixed with regard to the compensation payable in respect of the structure which was acquired under the notification for acquisition raising it from ‘ 1,200 per square meter to ‘ 1700 per square meter.

       Result : Appeals allowed partly