1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD First Appeal No.3768 of 2008 Babu Madhav Jawale (died) through legal representative: Rajendra s/o Babu Jawale age 46 years, occup. agril. Appellant/ r/o Nagur, Taluka Omerga, original District Osmanabad. claimant. versus The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist.Osmanabad. Respondent ------ Shri V.V.Ingle, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondent. Coram: P.R.Borkar J. Date : July 15, 2009. Oral Judgment 01. This first appeal is filed by original claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by Reference Court i.e. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in Land Acquisition Reference No.33 of 2004 decided on 20.8.2007. 02. Some of the facts giving rise to this first appeal may be stated in brief as 2 below. The appellant-claimant owned a house bearing No.68 admeasuring 231.10 square meter at village Nagur, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad. The house was acquired for Terna Minor Irrigation Project. According to the appellant, his house was constructed in cement concrete. Actual constructed area was 180.80 square meters. There was a big gate of 22 ft in length prepared by skilled workers. There were six rooms having roof of 28 bays made from wood. Timber of babhool Neem and tick was used for construction. There was platform admeasuring 10`x3`x2` and there was also a bathroom and other construction. The Special Land Acquisition Officer ("SLAO" for short) valued the house property at Rs.88,883/=. According to the claimant, he should have been awarded price of Rs.1,38,507/= and, therefore, he filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court observed that though the appellant has approached the court with a case that his house was new and he had spent about Rs.1.00 to Rs.1.50 lakhs over 3 construction of the same, his cross examination indicated that the house was standing in the name of his father and it was allotted to his father's share thirty years before the deposition. There were no receipts, vouchers regarding amounts spent on the construction. At Exhibit 32, there is grampanchayat record which indicates that the annual ratable value of the property was Rs. 1,225/= in the year 1982-83, and tax was Rs.3.6 paisa. 03. Learned Reference Court has further indicated that the total area of the property was 231.10 square meters. E statement showed value of the house to be Rs.86,572/= and price was Rs. 2,311/= and so the total value was Rs.88,883/=. Valuation report prepared by one Shri R.S. Baraskar was produced on record, but he is not examined. Matter was pending for long time and no one was appearing before the court and hence after perusal of the papers, the learned Judge decided the matter. 4 04. Learned Reference Court has also concluded that house was 30 years old. Statements of the claimant were contradictory. House was constructed during lifetime of grand father of the applicant; and thirty years prior to deposition of claimant, it was allotted to the share of his father. So, considering E statement and the award, learned Judge held that proper compensation was awarded by the SLAO and, therefore, he dismissed the Reference. 05. Shri Ingle, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the claimant intends to examine valuer Shri R.S. Baraskar as a witness and for that purpose the matter may be remanded. 06. Following points arise for my consideration "(1) Is this a matter where remand would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of case ? (2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference court is as per per market 5 value ? " 07. Heard Shri Ingle, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. 08. Perusal of roznamas of the Reference Court indicates that deposition of claimant Rajendra Jawale (PW-1) was recorded at Exhibit 31 on 15.2.1999. Thereafter, claimant filed as many as 29 applications for adjournment at Exhibits 33 to 63 in between 15.2.1999 to 28.7.2004 which were granted. Thus, for five years adjournments were sought one after another and still no further evidence was led by claimant. Expert could have been examined during these five years. In my opinion, more than sufficient opportunity was given. Ultimately, when the proceedings were transferred from the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, notices at Exhibits 64 and 68 were issued and in spite of service of notices, no one was present on behalf of the claimant and, therefore, ultimately the matter was 6 decided on 20.8.2007. So, the matter was pending for seven years. I am not at all satisfied that the claimant was genuinely interested in leading evidence. He had all the opportunities at his disposal to lead the evidence. Under the circumstances, this is not a case fit for remand. 09. Reasons given by the Reference Court are consistent with the record. Both the learned Advocates have taken me through judgment of Reference Court and shown various documents on record. The reasons recorded by the Court are proper. Evidence of the claimant alone is not sufficient to grant the claim made. 10. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be and is, accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. pnd/fa3768.08 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)