1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 593/2008 (State of Mah. & anr. Vs. Sk. Sarvar Sk. Pampamiya through L.Rs. ) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 27 th JUNE, 2008. Heard Shri Sonak for the appellants. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 20/1990 on 13th February, 2003, granting enhanced compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 39,558/- along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the Award till the amount is deposited in the Court or paid to the claimant. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that there was no evidence whatsoever before the reference Court to have enhanced the compensation to the aforesaid extent. According to the learned A.G.P., the applicant/claimant had examined only himself and the son of the valuer who had valued the property in question. It is submitted on behalf 2 of the appellant that there was no evidence on record to show that the price of the land at the relevant time was Rs. 2.50 paise per square fit. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that there was no evidence whatsoever to hold that the house standing on the acquired plot was worth Rs. 22,100/- on the date of issuance of Section 4 notification. He, therefore, sought for the quashing of the Award dated 13th February, 2003 as according to the learned A.G.P., the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was proper. I have perused the impugned judgment as well as the relevant documents. It appears that the plot admeasuring 1495 sq. ft. was acquired by the State Government, along with the house standing thereon. The Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,275/- for the plot of land, the house and the interest paid thereon. In the reference application, the claimant had claimed an amount of Rs. 29,746/- towards the market price of the plot and house with solatium and interest, in accordance with law. It is necessary to note that the applicant examined himself and also examined the son of Civil Engineer B.R. Deshmukh who had submitted the Valuation Report of the property. Since B.R. Deshmukh died during the pendency of the 3 proceeding, it was not possible for the applicant to examine the Civil Engineer and as such, his son who was himself a Civil Engineer, was examined by the applicant on his behalf. It was clearly deposed by the son of Shri B.R. Deshmukh, who was also a Civil Engineer, that he was working with his father during the time when the land was valued. He further pointed out that he had placed the report and the map drawn by his father on record. He stated that he was accompanying his father when his father did that job and prepared a report, though he was not a signatory to the same. The reference Court observed that the State had utterly failed in dislodging the evidence of the Civil Engineer, by not cross-examining him. Though, in view of the valuation report, the market value of the plot at the relevant time, was atleast @ Rs. 5/-per sq.ft., the reference Court, after appreciating the evidence on record and applying the other decisions, determined the price of the land @ Rs. 2.50 per sq.ft. Thus, the reference Court granted the compensation for the plot of land only at Rs. 2.50 per sq.ft. Similarly, though the valuation of the property showed that the value of the property was more, the reference Court held that the value of the house at the relevant time was Rs. 22,100/-. Thus, it appears from the record that according to the extract of 4 Index Register which was produced by the Valuer, the market value of the land and property was much more, but the reference Court did not blindly rely on the extract of Index Register to hold that the ground value of the plot was Rs. 2.50 per sq. ft. After considering the evidence on record, it appears that the compensation granted by the reference Court is extremely just and proper and cannot be said to be on the higher side. For the reasons aforesaid, the first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP