Prabhakar Raghunath Patil & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra

2. The aforesaid properties were proposed to be acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of Hatnoor Project which was published on 15.09.1983. Subsequently, a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act which was published on 24.05.1984. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 22.09.1986 and possession of the properties was also taken on 18.10.1986. By the aforesaid award, passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, compensation for the properties was valued at ` 1, 10,547.50 which was directed to be paid to the claimants in the Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 of 1991. In so far as the Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 of 1991 was concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at ` 4,67,500.53 and for the case in Land Acquisition Reference No. 4 of 1991, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at ` 7,20,464.91.

3. The appellants-claimants not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, 2 requested a reference of their claims to the Civil Court on the basis of which the aforesaid reference cases, viz., Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 2 to 4 of 1991 were numbered. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of ` 350 per square meter for the open land and at ` 2,000 per square meter for the structures. After recording evidence adduced by the parties and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence placed before the reference court, it granted enhanced compensation of ` 2,48,526 to the claimants in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 of 1991, ` 5,10,562.50 to the claimants in Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 of 1991 and ` 10,84,605 to the claimants in Land Acquisition Reference No. 4 of 1991.

4. At this stage, however, we would like to record that the reference court, while relying on the sale instance and the oral evidence of the expert, enhanced the compensation determining the value of the open land at the rate of ` 225 per square meter and at the rate of ` 1,200 per square meter for the structure. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the 3 reference court, the State of Maharashtra filed appeals in the Bombay High Court which was registered as First Appeal Nos. 133/1995, 134/1995 whereas the three appeals filed by the claimants were registered as First Appeal Nos. 338/1995, 339/1995 and 340/1995.

12.Therefore, the cost of construction, which would be admittedly lower in 1983 than in 1991, must also be juxtaposed with the depreciation that would have accrued to the structures owing to wear and tear over a period of 8 years. In the year 1991, the cost of construction of residential building was ` 2,800 per square meter for the ground floor and ` 2,200 per square meter for the second and third floors. We are of the considered opinion that a deduction of 60 per cent (approximate) from the said valuation of the cost of construction in 1991 would be appropriate, and accordingly arrive at a compensation of ` 1700 per square meter for the structure. Our decision to deduct the said percentage of 60% is based on the Building Cost Index between 1983 and 1991 published by the Central Public Works Department, which reflects the rise in cost of construction over the said period of time.

............................................J [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ] ............................................J [ Swatanter Kumar ] New Delhi, November 11, 2010.