1 fa 630.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 630 OF 2011 The Executive Engineer Waghur Dam Division .. Appellant Versus Prakash Shefadu Sonawane and others .. Respondents Shri S. D. Dhongade, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shr B. J. Sonwane, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2011 FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2011 FIRST APPEAL NO. 633 OF 2011 FIRST APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2011 FIRST APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2011 FIRST APPEAL NO. 636 OF 2011 FIRST APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2011 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 03RD MAY, 2011. PER COURT : . The lands along with constructed houses of the claimants 2 fa 630.11 were acquired for Waghur Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square meter for land and for houses @ Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1,400/-per square meter. Being dissatisfied by the inadequate amount of compensation awarded, the claimants preferred Reference U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court partly allowed the references and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 600/- per square meter for the lands and Rs. 3,850/- per square meter for built up area admeasuring 60.30 square meters. Rs. 2,000/- per square meter for the area admeasuring 37.10 square meter as detailed in the award passed by the Reference Court. Aggrieved thereby the acquiring body has filed the present appeals. 2. Shri Dhongade, the learned counsel submits that, the Reference Court has awarded exorbitant amount of compensation without any basis. There is no evidence to substantiate the same. The learned counsel further contended that in case of compensation for the constructed houses, the Reference Court has relied on the evidence of private expert valuer. The same is evidence of interested person and could not have been relied upon. According to the learned counsel even the valuation report 3 fa 630.11 was submitted by the Executive Engineer, but the Reference Court has erroneously rejected the same. According to the learned counsel, the claimants are not entitled for the said enhancement. 3. Per contra, Shri Kale, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the Reference Court while determining the quantum of compensation as far as lands are concerned has relied on the evidence produced by the present appellant itself. So far as the valuation of the houses is concerned, the appellant did not examine the person who submitted the valuation report, whereas the expert valuer who is Government approved valuer had been examined who had made three categories of construction and detailed evidence is also given. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the contention of Shri Dhongade, the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment and the documents, pleadings and the depositions as made available to me by the learned counsel for 4 fa 630.11 the claimants. 6. As far as determining the valuation of the land is concerned, the Reference Court has relied on the Index II register which was submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the same shows sale transaction having taken place of the same village prior to the date of notification, i. e. rate of Rs. 1,000/- to 1,299/- per square meter and one sale deed was also produced and relied by the claimants which shows the rate of the land at Rs. 598/- per square meter. The Reference Court has as such considered the said sale deeds and has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 600/- per square meter only and has not accepted the other sale transactions which were also prior to the date of notification showing market value of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,299/- per square meter. As such, there was ample evidence before the Reference Court to come to the conclusion about the valuation of the land and the Reference Court has awarded modest amount in that regard. 7. As far as valuation of the constructed houses are concerned, the Reference Court has considered the evidence of expert valuer Mr. Khadse who is Government approved valuer. 5 fa 630.11 He has made three categories of the constructed houses. The Court has considered the same and awarded compensation accordingly. The appellant failed to examine its valuer who had submitted the valuation report. In absence of any oral evidence in that regard, the Court naturally could not have considered said report and when there was evidence of an expert valuer who had deposed in the Court and has proved the categories which he has made and the amount of compensation which the claimants would be entitled to for the constructed portion, in absence of any contra evidence, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. 8. The Reference Court as such, has awarded just and reasonable amount as compensation. The first appeals as such, are dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/May 11