1 219 fa.468.99 - Khairne ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 468 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Sadiqali Niyajappli Khan. ... Respondent ----- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Appellant / State. Mr. K.N.Kore for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 08 th August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The Appellant – State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 23 rd December, 1993 passed by the Reference Court in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The acquisition relates to a land which was notified under Section 4 (1) of the said Act on 10 th October, 1968 situated at village Khairne for the public purpose of setting up satellite city of new Bombay. The Respondent – claimant claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. As 2 219 fa.468.99 - Khairne the Respondent – claimant did not accept the award under Section 11 of the said Act, at the instance of the Respondent, a reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made to the Civil Court. By the impugned judgment and award, the market value of Rs.15,000/- has been granted in respect of the house on the acquired land alongwith other statutory benefits. 2 The submission of the learned AGP appearing for the Appellant is that the evidence of the expert valuer was discarded by the Reference Court and without there being any evidence on record, the market value of Rs.15,000/- for the house on the acquired land has been arbitrarily fixed by the Reference Court. He submitted that the burden was on the Respondent to prove that the compensation awarded was inadequate. His submission is that in absence of any cogent evidence, the market value of Rs.15,000/- could not have been granted. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and award. 3 219 fa.468.99 - Khairne 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The learned trial Judge has held that the Division Engineer of the (City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited) carried out valuation of the structure at the sum of Rs.3717/-. As against this, the Respondent examined one Ashok Govind Nimak, Architect as an expert witness. He opined that the valuation of the structure as on the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act was Rs.37,400/-. It is true that the Reference Court has rejected the report and opinion of the valuer. There is no dispute regarding existence of the said structure on the relevant date i.e. the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act. The said witness also stated that in the year 1964, the rate of construction was Rs.16/- per square feet. There does not appear to be any serious challenge to this statement in his cross- examination. The area of the structure was 2390 square meters. 4 Though, some part of the report have been rejected by the trial Court, the opinion of the valuer as regards the market value as of 1964 which is unchallenged is certainly relevant. The trial Court has 4 219 fa.468.99 - Khairne fixed the market value only at Rs.15,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.6.27 per square meter. The market value fixed is reasonable and no fault can be found with the market value. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]