* 1 * APPEAL-89-2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.89 OF 2007 IN LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.6 OF 1999 IN L.A. CASE NO. LAQ-F & CS (1) ALONGWITH CROSS OBJECTIONS (LODG) NO. 04 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO.89 OF 2007 IN LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.6 OF 1999 IN L.A. CASE NO. LAQ-F & CS (1) 1. The Controller of Rationing Office at Royal Insurance Building 5th Floor, J.T. Road, Churchgate Mumbai-400 020. .... Appellant/ Ori. Acquiring Body 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, MHADA/Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai-400 023. ..... Appellant/ Ori. Applicant : VERSUS : 1. Royal Insurance Co. Ltd National Insurance Co.) 12 J.T. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. .... Respondent/ Ori. Claimant * 2 * APPEAL-89-2007 *** Mr. P.G. Lad, AGP, adv.for appellant, and for respondent in Cross-Objections. Mr. C.M. Korde, Senior Advocate with Mr. Milind Jadha i/by. Mulla and Mulla & Cragie Blunt & Careo, adv.for respondent, and for appellant in Cross Objections. CORAM : D.K. Deshmukh & Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, JJ. DATED : 22nd June, 2010. P.C.: 1. The above appeal and the cross-objections arise out of the judgment and award dated 16th/17th October 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Land Acquisition Reference No.6 of 1999. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows : The appellant, the Controller of Rationing has been occupying the premises on 5th floor of Royal Insurance Building, Fort, Mumbai since its requisition on 6 ’ th October 1959. Later the Government proposed to acquire the premises for the appellant. Accordingly Notification under Sections 4 and 6 under the Land Acquisition Act dated 24th December 1992 and 23rd April 1994 * 3 * APPEAL-89-2007 respectively were issued. The Notification declared the area of the premises proposed to be acquired as 4500 sq. ft. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award in respect of the acquired premises admeasuring as 4500 sq. ft. and determining market value @Rs.5400/- per sq.ft., totalling the compensation alongwith the solatium and component etc. to Rs.3,79,85,174/-. The respondent, claimant filed a reference challenging the quantum of compensation awarded as also the area of the acquired premises as mentioned in the award. The claimant claimed compensation @Rs.18,000/- per sq. ft. and contended that the area of the acquired premises was 5800 sq. ft. The dispute as regards the area, however, got settled in view of acceptance by parties of the report dated 17th May 2000 of the Commissioner appointed by the reference court. As per the report, the area of acquired premises is 5300.01 sq. ft. 2. Thereafter the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims as regards the compensation payable for the premises. The claimant examined one witness, whereas, the acquiring body examined three witnesses. At the time of the arguments, the counsel for both the sides agreed that the * 4 * APPEAL-89-2007 evidence of one of the expert witnesses, Mr. Gajanan Sawant, may not be taken into account as his approach in arriving at the valuation, was not correct. There were four instances of sale stated in the evidence, out of which three sale instances were given up for different reasons, about which there is no dispute. Finally, there was a single sale instance in respect of Office No.409 situate on the 4th floor of Lotus House for the consideration of the court and the opinion of the three expert witnesses thereon, one of the claimant and two of the acquiring body. The different variables and the comparative deduction or addition in percentage terms which the three expert witnesses gave to the acquired premises are as follows : “1) Mr. Sam Rao (examined by claimant) (a) Time factor (approximate 1 year) = minus 10% (b) Area = minus 5% (c) Locality = plus 15% (d) Frontage = plus 10% (e) Nuisance = plus 7 & 1/2% (f) Difference in period of lease 99 years V/s. 199 years = Nil * 5 * APPEAL-89-2007 (g) Restricted clauses in the lease deed of acquired premises = Nil (h) Difference of maintenance and construction = Nil 2) Mr. Sanjay Kurve (examined by the acquiring body) (a) Time factor (approximate 1 year) = minus 10% (b) Area = minus 15% (c) Locality (including frontage) = plus 5% (d) Frontage (including locality) = plus 5% (e) Nuisance = Zero (f) Difference in period of lease 99 years V/s. 199 years = minus 15% (g) Restricted clauses in the lease deed of acquired premises = minus 5% (h) Difference of maintenance and construction = Nil 3) Mrs. Bharati B. Dalvi (examined by the acquiring body) (a) Time factor (approximate 1 year) = minus 10% * 6 * APPEAL-89-2007 (b) Area = minus 15% (c) Locality = Nil (d) Frontage = Nil (e) Nuisance = Nil (f) Difference in period of lease 99 years V/s. 199 years = minus 4% (g) Restricted clauses in the lease deed of acquired premises = Nil (h) Difference of maintenance and construction = minus 1% 3. On appreciation of the evidence of the three experts, the decision of the learned Single Judge on different variables in the impugned Judgment and Award is as follows : JUDGMENT (a) Time factor (approximate 1 year) = minus 10% (b) Area = minus 5% (c) & (d) Locality & Frontage = plus 5% (d) Amenities = plus 5% (e) Nuisance = plus 5% * 7 * APPEAL-89-2007 (f) Difference in period of lease 99 years V/s. 199 years = minus 5% (g) Restricted clauses in the lease deed of acquired premises = minus 5% . The net deduction given by the learned Single Judge after taking into account all the variables, was 10%. With that, the value of the acquired premises was taken as Rs.5832/- per sq.ft for built up area. The challenge to the impugned judgment and Award by the acquiring body is on the ground of the departure made by the court from the deductions under different variables as deposed by its witnesses. It also contends that the learned Single Judge erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 15,69,780/- awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the reversionary interest of the lessor-State in the acquired premises which are situate on a land leased for 99 years. The respondent claimant has filed cross-objections contending that the learned Single Judge ought to have granted compensation as claimed by it. 4. With the help of the counsel for both the sides, we have gone through the impugned judgment. We find that the learned Single Judge in the exhaustive judgment has evaluated in detail, * 8 * APPEAL-89-2007 the evidence of each expert witness to arrive at the additions and deductions granted in the variables. It is a completely reasonable view of the matter and needs no inference, at our hands. The main grievance of the appellant is about refusal by the learned Single Judge in allowing deduction of Rs.15,69,780/- in respect of the reversionary interest of the lessor stated in the acquired premises which is situate on the land for last 99 years. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge in dis- allowing this deduction reads as follows : I am not inclined to allow the deduction of Rs.15,69,780/- as “ contained in the award for the simple reason that the same is based upon the price of the land and structure though the deduction was being given in respect of reversion of land only. Apart from this I have already observed that there is a clause of renewal of lease in perpetuity. I have therefore, increased the deduction under the risk factor attending the different periods of lease. ” The above view taken by the learned Single Judge, according to us is correct and is not required to be disturbed. We also find no substance in the contention of the respondent-claimant for enhancement of the compensation. Hence, the Appeal No.89 of 2007 and the Cross Objections (Lodging) No.4 of 2007 are dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] [D.K.DESHMUKH, J]