IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Versus
PRATAPSINGH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS
Decided on : MAY 3, 2005
( 2 ) IN the present land acquisition reference two witnesses are examined by the claimant, one is Aditya Pratap Singh who is the son of claimant No. 1 and constituted attorney of claimant No. 1 to 3 and another Mr. Vinit Ramanlal Shah, expert valuer in support of his valuation report dated 28-1-1994. The learned counsel appearing for the SLAO has cross-examined the said witness but has not produced any witness on their behalf. Insofar as oral evidence is concerned the first witness namely Aditya P. Singh has identified the said land and has produced documents in the form of order and plan of the said property. He has deposed that the said land was acquired for public purpose for construction of jogeshwari-Vikhroli link road. He has also deposed that pursuant to the said acquisition the claimant was awarded compensation of Rs. 34,198. 10/- (including 15% solatium) at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. He has stated in the evidence in examination-in-chief that he was looking after the said land and he has visited the same and thus he is aware of the location and condition of the said land. According to him the said land was vacant in 1975. According to him the said land was a levelled land and that prior to taking over possession he had visited the land. He has identified the said land in the plan. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that the land was at a distance of 100 mts. from Kanjurmarg railway Station and 300 mts from Vikhroli Railway Station. He has further stated that the said land was also at a distance of 100 mts from LBS Marg which is one of the major arterial road. He has been cross-examined by SLAO and in his cross-examination he has admitted that the land which was acquired was a barren land and was not put to any use at the time of acquisition in 1975. He has also deposed that the land was a grassy land. He has deposed that the surrounding area of the land which was a government land was occupied by hutments. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that there is no development on the acquired land or surrounding areas of the said land. He has however deposed that the land is not a residential land and was closely located to Kanjurmarg Railway station. In his cross-examination he has also expressed his inability to classify the acquired land for residential purposes but he has stated that the acquired land is located on the eastern side of the railway line. He has admitted in his crossexamination that the said land had no access and he has further admitted that there are no other comparable sale instances are available on the eastern side of the railway line. He has admitted that there
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.