Gangadhar vs State Of Maharashtra

R. G. Avachat, J

This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The challenge herein is to the judgment and award dated 20.09.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division (Reference Court) Newasa, in Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.) No.275/2010. The appellant herein is the original land owner whose land with house/bungalow thereon, came to be acquired for Jayakwadi Project. The quantum of compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was accepted by the appellant under protest and preferred L.A.R. for enhancement therein. The Reference Court, in turn, enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs.1,58,349/- with all consequential benefits. The appellant feeling the enhancement of compensation to be grossly inadequate, has preferred the present appeal.

Heard.

Shri A. B. Kale, learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that there were two house properties belonging to the appellant. Both were acquired for submerged area of Jayakwadi Project. The Grampanchayat property numbers of both these properties were 1 and 39. The property No.1 admeasured 833.10 square meters. The construction thereon was admeasuring 755 square meters. The property bearing No.39 admeasured 538.10 square meters, with tin shed thereon. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded meager amount of Rs.16,454/-. The appellant had examined himself on oath. A Civil Engineer was also examined in proof of the construction plan and estimated cost of the bungalow that came to be acquired. The photographs thereof have also been placed on record. The house property had come to the share of the appellant in partition. A copy of deed to partition was also placed on record. The respondent – State did not lead any evidence. Valuation of the bungalow was Rs.5,05,367/-. When the entire construction admeasured 755 square meters, the Reference Court ought not to have reduced it to 303 square meters by guess work. No compensation has been awarded for the open piece of land. The learned Advocate relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Haryana – (2016) 4 SCC 544, would submit that the Court can grant compensation more than claimed in the Reference. The amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Advocate, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal.

The learned APP would, on the other hand, submit that there is no evidence in proof that the bungalow to have admeasured 755 square meters. The amount of compensation awarded is more than the market value. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.

Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the evidence relied on. Gone through the impugned judgment. The award (Exh.55) does indicate that two properties admeasuring 833. 10 and 538.10 square meters, belonging to the appellant herein came to be acquired. In the Reference itself, the property bearing No.39 has been admitted to be an open space. The Reference Court has not awarded any amount of compensation for this property. It might be a mistake. The property bearing Grampanchayat No.1, admittedly admeasures 833.10 square meters. According to the appellant, almost entire piece of land was under RCC bungalow. The building plan Exh.48 placed on record by the appellant himself does indicate that the built up portion was admeasuring 2311 square feet. Exh.49 is the building plan of the bungalow, that came to be acquired. Photographs Exh.50 do indicate that it was a well built spacious bungalow. There is, however, no concrete evidence of its dimensions.

True, the notice Exh.55 issued by the appellant to the Land Acquisition Officer does make mention therein about the details of construction admeasuring 8424 square feet. The Grampanchayat extract Exh.51, however, disclosed the dimension as under:

On appreciation of evidence, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the built up area admeasured not more than 3264 square feet. It, therefore, granted compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per square meter relying on the evidence of Civil Engineer examined on behalf of the appellant. In short, the Reference Court has accepted the rate of construction as was estimated by the Engineer. It is true that the Court can grant compensation more than claimed in the Reference. A case, therefore, has however to be made out. The property came to be acquired way back in December 1990 (date of award – 04.12.1990). The possession of the property was said to have been taken in 1988 itself. There is no evidence as to what was really the rate of construction per square meter. The Reference Court relied on the witness examined by the appellant and accepted the rate given by him. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to make enhancement in the rate of construction per square meter.

The Reference Court worked out the amount of compensation at Rs.1,82,010/- for 303.35 square meters of area @ Rs.600/- per square meter. It substracted 13% thereof towards depreciation. The Reference Court has observed in para 15 as under:

“15. Needless to mention that this 13% depreciation is also calculated on the basis of judicial notice of the various judgment passed by this Court and the calculation made therein…..”

It is reiterated that the Reference Court has not given sound reasons as to why 13% has been deducted towards depreciation. This Court is therefore not inclined to uphold deduction of 13%.

The Reference Court did not grant compensation in respect of open piece(s) of land.

Admittedly, the property bearing Grampanchayat No.1 admeasured 833.10 square meters. The Reference Court granted compensation for a bungalow admeasuring 303.35 square meters. The area admeasuring 529.75 square meters of this property remained to be considered for grant of compensation. Moreover, the property Grampanchayat No.39 admeasuring 538.10 square meters has not at all been considered for grant of compensation. The record indicates that there were some tin sheds. Those have also not been taken into consideration.

As such, the appellant has not been granted compensation in respect of open piece(s) of land total admeasuring 1067.85 square meters (529.75 + 538.10 = 1067.85 square meters i.e. 11494.24 square feet).

Admittedly, the land was in the nature of house site i.e. to be used for non agricultural purpose. There is no evidence as to rate of such property on the date of the award. The distance between taluka place and the property acquired is of about 10 kms. Since it was a house site, this Court proposes to grant compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square feet with all consequential benefits i.e. Rs.1,14,942/- (11494.24 square feet X Rs.10/-) i.e. round figure Rs.1,15,000/-. The subtracted 13% amount (Rs.23,661/-) is added thereto. After adding the same, the total comes to Rs.1,38,661/-. (1,15,000 + 23,661). With this, the appeal partly succeeds in terms of following order.

ORDER

(i) The First appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The appellant is granted enhanced compensation of Rs.1,38,661/-.

(iii) Rest of the terms of the impugned award to stand unaltered.