1 WP-5300.10.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5300 OF 2010 Prakash Bhagwant Moharir : Petitioner versus Indirabai Vasudeo Gorwadkar Since deceased through LRs Mukundrao Vasudeo Gorwadkar and ors. : Respondent. Mr.R M Haridas with Mr. P N Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Mogre for the Respondent Nos.1A to 1C. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 17th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 24/6/2010 passed by the learned IVth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik on the Application-Exhibit-68 in Regular Darkhast 26 of 2008 by which order the said Application-Exhibit 68 was allowed, and resultantly the Petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, was directed to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 93,78,547 lacs and pay the monthly compensation at the rate of Rs.1,71,600/- for the use of the premises in question after the decree. 2 The said order was challenged on the ground that the said amounts as directed to be paid were excessive, as the said amounts were calculated on the basis of Ready Reckoner rates to which the Petitioner has taken exception. 2 WP-5300.10.sxw 3 This Court in the above Petition, in view of the consensus between the parties vide order dated 21/9/2010 appointed one M/s.Kishor P Parkar Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd as the valuers of the suit premises. The said valuers were directed to submit their report. The said valuers had, after following the procedure of visiting the suit premises and also by giving opportunity to the parties, submitted their report on 22/11/2010. From the context of the present Petition, it would be relevant to note that the parties had agreed that the compensation payable will be in terms of the report that would be submitted. 4 The valuers have now submitted their report according to which the compensation payable is Rs.62,000/- per month. The basis for arriving at the said figure has been mentioned in the said valuation report. It is in terms of the order of this Court dated 21/09/2011. It would therefore be at the said rate that the Petitioner would be entitled to pay compensation for the use of the premises. 5 Though the parties had agreed that the compensation would be payable in terms of the report of the valuers, notwithstanding the same, the learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Haridas would make three submissions. Firstly that the report has been prepared on a wrong premise that the premises in question admeasure 876 sq.ft. when as per the certificate of Nashik Municipal Corporation they admeasure 670 sq.ft. Secondly that the 3 WP-5300.10.sxw depreciation at 25% is wrongly calculated. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, as per the provision of Income Tax Act the depreciation was to be calculated at 10%. And thirdly, the profits have wrongly been taken at 10% when it should be at 6%. 6 In my view, apart from the fact that the said objections cannot be raised in view of the fact that the parties had agreed that the compensation would be as per the valuers report, there is no substance in any of the three submissions in the teeth of the fact that no such objection as regards area was raised before the valuers. In so far as depreciation is concerned, the same is for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, and so far as the profits are concerned, the same are taken into consideration to arrive at a proper valuation of the property. In my view, therefore, there is now no escape for the Petitioner but to pay compensation at the rate that is fixed by the valuers. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The amounts calculated by the Executing Court would be substituted by the amount payable by the Petitioner in terms of the valuation report as submitted by M/s. Kishor P Parkar, Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd. [R.M.SAVANT, J]