Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.
Keshavrao Govindrao Avagan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 684 of 2009, 397 of 2009 and 331 of 2009
Decided On : 08-10-2021
Land Acquisition Act - Valuation of Constructed Area - Section 4, Section 18 - Judgment discusses the valuation of constructed area in the context of land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The court determines the compensation for the constructed area of the acquired properties and highlights the legal principles governing valuation of immovable property.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's properties were acquired for the submergence of Arunawati Project. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant filed a reference proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Reference Court partly allowed the claim of the appellant and enhanced the compensation for the acquired properties. The appellant's appeal against the judgment of the Reference Court was heard by the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to enhancement in compensation for the acquired properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation for the open space area and the constructed area of the acquired properties. It emphasized the need to consider expert valuation reports and the quality of construction in determining just and reasonable compensation.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals, modified the judgment and award of the Reference Court, and directed the respondents to pay enhanced compensation for the open plot area and constructed area of the acquired properties.
JUDGMENT
Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J. - Heard.
2. These Appeals take exception to the judgment and award dated 22/12/2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Darwha in LAC Nos. 459/2004, 492/2004 and 682/2004. In all these Appeals, the appellant Keshavrao Govindrao Avagan is the owner of the properties, which came to be acquired for the submergence of Arunawati Project.
3. First Appeal Nos. 684/2009, 397/2009 and 331/2009 arose out of the LAC Nos. 459/2004, 492/2004 and 682/2004 respectively.
4. First Appeal No. 684/2009 is in respect of house No. 171/1 admeasuring 444.3 sq. mtr. out of which constructed area is 264.22 sq. mtr and open space is 180.08 sq. mtr., First Appeal No. 397/2009 is in respect of house No. 268 having total open space of 65.9 sq. mtr., and First Appeal No. 331/2009 is in respect of house No. 306 admeasuring 50 sq.mtr having total 50 sq. mtr. as constructed area.
All these properties are situated at Village Mokh, Tq. Digras, District Yavatmal.
5. The subject properties of the appellant/claimant came to be acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer (“LAO”) by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the said Act”), which was published in Government Gazette on 08/06/1989, and the award came to be passed by the LAO on 26/03/1991, thereby awarded compensation of Rs. 1,69,158/- for house No. 171/1, Rs. 923/- for house No. 268 and Rs. 14,710/- for house No. 306.
6. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the LAO, the appellant/claimant filed a reference proceeding under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,26,648/- in LAC No. 459/2004, Rs. 8962/- in LAC No. 492/2004 and Rs. 1,80,097/- in LAC No. 682/2004.
7. The respondents/State filed their written statement resisting the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation and submitted that the award passed by the LAO is adequate and proper, and therefore, deserves no interference.
8. The Reference Court framed necessary issues and recorded evidence as adduced by the parties. The claimant examined himself below Exh. 24 and one expert witness Shri Abhay Patil below Exh. 31 in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation for constructed area and also examined one Tulsiram Tukaram Thakre to prove one comparable sale instance. The respondents/State and V.I.D.C. preferred not to examine any witness.
9. The Reference Court on appreciation of evidence vide common judgment and award dated 22/12/2005 partly allowed the claim of the appellant and enhanced the amount of compensation as under:
For house No. 171/1, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- along with statutory benefits and interest against Rs. 1,75,378/- as has been awarded by the LAO.
For house No. 268, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- along with statutory benefits and interest against Rs. 923/- as has been awarded by the LAO.
For house No. 306, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- along with statutory benefits and interest against Rs. 15,014/- as has been awarded by the LAO.
This judgment of the Reference Court is impugned in this Appeal by the appellant-owner of the lands.
10. I have heard Shri Nemade, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kadukar, learned A.G.P. for State and Shri Patil, learned counsel for V.I.D.C.
11. On the basis of submissions made on behalf of both the sides, following point arose for determination of this Court:
“Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement in compensation for his subject lands house Nos. 171/1, 268 and 306?”
12. At the outset, as far as valuation for the open space of land, ad measuring 180.08 sq. mtr. in house No. 171/1 and 65.9 sq. mtr in house No. 268, learned both the counsel are at ad idem that this issue has been covered by the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 552/2014 decided on 01/10/2021 (Shri Motiram s/o. Bapurao Ingole (Dead) thr. Lrs Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) wherein this Cour
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
