The claimant has led evidence of an expert witness.
Though the integrity of the expert witness cannot be
questioned, his report leaves much to be desired. His
evidence shows that for his valuation he considered the
value of the land plus the depreciated cost of construction.
He enumerated the methods of calculation of the valuation
of the land by viz., comparable sale instances, development
method and capitalisation method.
19. He had taken search in the office of the sub registrar in
respect of the acquired land, which was indispensable. He
deposed that he himself did not carry out the search. His
assistant did. He knows that a fee is to be paid and a receipt
is given for such search. He could not produce it. He did
not know how many sub registrar's offices are concerned
with the property. He did not remember whether his
assistant was sent to the place where the property was
situated. He did not know where his assistant was directed
to attend. He did not know the sub registrar's jurisdiction.
He did not know whether the sub registrar's offices at
Chembur would have jurisdiction in respect of the acquired
land or whether that office had started at the relevant time.
20. He agreed that the valuation of the property depends
upon its location, size and condition and those details would
be required to be ascertained. His evidence shows that he
had visited the property at the time of making his report and
had not seen the structures. He failed to obtain details about
the use of the structures and the encumbrance by the
tenants. He did not know that the plans of the property
would be available with the TLR's office. What he knew was
that the occupants were not permanent tenants. He was
informed by the owner that it was something like guest
house. Though he knew that the information about the
tenants could be available from the municipal assessment
department, he did not obtain it. He admitted that he would
require to value the property not upon what he saw at the
time of his visit, but at the time of the notification for
acquisition. Yet he had not verified the documents.
21. His observations were on the basis of what he saw
when he visited the suit property to prepare his report.
Accordingly he observed that the plot was levelled, that
there were no structures and he did not know the precise
measurement. His entire report is based only on information
given by the client which he had not verified though it was
verifiable from the municipal records. His entire valuation
report without accounting for the size, type and extent of the
structures is, therefore, completely flawed. He admitted and
accepted that the valuation of a structure would be different
if it was authorised or not authorised and that the
authorisation could be seen from the plan of the structures
or of the suit property. Though being a professional
architect, he did not demand the documentation, but relied
upon the information of his client alone. He, therefore,
could not account for the fact whether the occupants were
“temporary or permanent”. Though admitting that the cost
of construction varies with the nature of construction, he has
not accounted for the construction. He only accepted the
information of the claimant with regard to the structures and
consequently he did not know the age of the structures or its
valuation with regard to the materials used for the
construction.
22. Though there were no trees when he visited the suit
property on the acquired land he has given valuation of the
trees. Despite admitting that the age and the yield of the
trees is important he has not taken any steps to ascertain
either. He has made the valuation on the basis of his own
judgment and without accounting for the age, size or the
yield of the trees. He has admitted that since there were no
trees on the acquired land when he inspected it, he only
relied upon the information of the claimant without even
verifying the report of the joint inspection.
23. He has mentioned about the movables on the acquired
land being the tank, fencing, pump etc. He has not verified
any documentary evidence with regard to these items. He
took no steps to collect those details. He knew that when an
electric meter is installed, it belongs to the electric company
and that the deposit would be refunded when the meter is
surrendered. He claimed for the meter without verifying the
refund obtained by his client. He disputed that it was the
property of the electric company. He claimed compensation
for 2 water tanks also on the oral information of the
claimant without verification of the nature and size of the
tank, the material used for its construction or the date of its
purchase.
24. He claimed for the fencing on the basis of the
information given by the claimant alone.
25. He claimed an area of 572.50 m² without physically
measuring the same and from the property register.
26. He admitted the concept of developed land. He
deposed that the acquired land is almost in the centre of the
developed area in the development plan. He was not shown
the joint inventory though he was aware that joint survey
was carried out. He did not verify the report of the joint
survey which is a public document and could be applied for
by him. Because at the time of his inspection there were no
structures on the land he concluded that the land was not
encroached upon.
27. He did not call for the income tax returns, the rent
received, the assessment bills, the plan of the land or any
such documentary evidence which would be easily available
with the claimant or which could be obtained from the
public authorities.
28. He has provided for loss of business for which he has
shown the value of the business, but he had not taken any
steps to ascertain what business the claimant was carrying
on on the acquired land. He would need the figures of the
income of the last 3 years prior to the acquisition. Since in
his opinion no other details to assess the compensation for
loss of business was necessary, he did not verify any
documents showing the business of the claimant to compute
its loss. He did not know that the claimant had claimed an
income of Rs.9000/ p.a from fire wood business and
Rs.15,000/ p.a as rent from the residential premises. He
computed the profits of the business of the claimant only
from the information given by the claimant.
29. He has admitted that he could not find any new
development around the acquired land at the time of his visit
also or the fact of no access to the land which is admitted by
the claimant as also the encroachments along the east side of
the land also admitted by the claimant. Consequently these
are the aspects not accounted for by him in his report.
30. He admitted that the Mahul village road was not fully
developed, and was to be widened in the revised sanctioned
development plan.
31. He claimed 30% advantage in respect of the acquired
land. For that purpose he has not compared the acquired
land with any other land to verify the physical condition. He
relied upon only his visit to the suit land at the time of the
report.
32. Upon seeing the evidence of the claimant and the
expert witness no case for interfering with the valuation put
by the SLAO is made out.
The above evidence shows that no such case is made out.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2006
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (7)
And
Pundalik Raghunath Mahulkar ...Claimant
And
The Commissioner of Gr. Mumbai,
Municipal Corporation, Mumbai
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Citation: 2015(2)ABR730, 2015(4)ALLMR795, 2015(2)BomCR497, 2015(4)MhLj778
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment: 2nd March,2015
1. This land acquisition reference is taken out under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1882 (LAR) for
enhancement of compensation. The acquisition of land is
not in dispute. It has been acquired for a Municipal retail
market and for municipal housing. The compensation paid
has been claimed to be inadequate by the claimant. The
claimant would have to prove the inadequacy. The claimant
has not led evidence of any sale instance in the vicinity
during the period of acquisition. The claimant has led
evidence on the inadequacy of the compensation granted.
He would also contend that the land acquired on CTS No.
151 admeasuring 572.50 m² has been acquired of which is
the owner and the entire land has not been taken into
consideration for the payment of compensation. The
acquiring body which is a municipality has also led evidence
on the precise position of the land to show that the
compensation which has been granted by the SLAO is
adequate and sufficient. The case is entirely dependent
upon oral evidence in view of the admitted position of the
land, its situation, and the position of the facilities and
amenities around the land. It would therefore have to be
determined, taking into account the oral evidence led by the
parties as to whether additional compensation is required to
be granted.
2. The material issues between the parties are :
1. Whether the compensation fixed by the SLAO is
adequate and sufficient.
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any
additional compensation.
3. What relief, if any, is the claimant entitled to ?
3. The claimant has led evidence and has been crossexamined.
The claimant has also led evidence of an expert
witness to show the value of the acquired land. The officer
of the acquiring body has also led evidence on behalf of the
acquiring body. These witnesses are crossexamined with
regard to the exact position of the suit land alongside the
other lands in the vicinity.
4. The issues shall have to be decided upon such oral
evidence. Issue numbers 1 and 2 shall be decided together.
5. Issue Nos.1 and 2: The claimant has claimed that the
entire land is 572.50 m². He has claimed that the 3
instances cited by the SLAO are not comparable with his
land.
6. With regard to the features of his land, he has deposed
that it is in the heart of Mahul village. The entire
surrounding area is developed. There are market facilities,
school facilities, and transport facilities in and surrounding
his plot. All the other facilities are available at a short
distance. The market rate in the ready reckoner was
Rs.5400 per square metre at the relevant time. He,
therefore, claims that the SLAO wrongly awarded
compensation at the rate of 2970 per sq.mtr., though his
land is developed with structures, fencing and trees. He has
made grievance that the SLAO has not considered the
valuation report which he submitted to him for calculating
the market value. He has challenged the valuation of the
trees in the acquired land.
7. He claims that he has fruit bearing trees and fuel
bearing trees. He has disputed the valuation of the
structures on the acquired land at Rs.1.31 lakhs fixed by the
SLAO without reasons. He claims that the executive
engineer, PWD valued the structures at Rs.3.82 lakhs which
was not considered by the SLAO. He claims that the
structures are prior to 1960 and have been assessed by the
BMC. He is aggrieved that he used the acquired land for his
residence and had to shift along with his household articles
and materials. He also had a Wakhar on the suit land from
which he earned an income of Rs.1.50. He had 20 tenanted
structures on the suit land from which he received a rental
income of Rs. 2 lakhs. He relied upon his income tax returns
for the relevant years. He had put up a compound with 47
iron bars and iron rope, had pumps and water storage tank
on the acquired land.
8. He claims that his land was slightly encroached upon
by the occupant of the adjoining land. That encroachment is
3.75 m² which took place whilst the land was in the
possession of the respondents. He, therefore, claims that the
land of which possession was taken was 572.50m². He has
taken exception to the SLAO reducing the compensation to
the extent of Rs.18761 on account of the encroachment on
3.75 m² of land.
9. He, therefore, claims the market price of 6480 per
square metre taking into account the cost of the structures,
trees, and expenses for change of his residence, loss of
income, rental income for 10 years and the compound wall.
10. He has been crossexamined by the acquiring
body. His crossexamination reveals that there are
government lands on the east and south of the acquired
land. The land on CTS No.150 which is adjoining his land is
half encroached. The land on CTS No. 152, which is also
adjoining his land, is fully encroached. He claims that the
structures on CTS No.150 are temporary structures and
structures on CTS No.152 are temporary but pucca
structures. He says that those structures are not regular
ground +1 storey structures, but an extension of ground
storey having access from the outside (which would show
the construction of the first floor). He has admitted that
there is an unathorised wall on the North of the acquired
land and the property to the south and west of his property
are in “no development” zone. On the East there is a
refinery. There is only one approach road to Mehul village
from Chambur which is a 60 feet wide road and allows only
one vehicle each way. Chembur is 4 miles from the acquired
land. In the entire area there are no high – rise structures;
the structures are of 2 or 3 storeys. There are no hospital
facilites in Mehul village, but there are clinics and
dispensaries. There are no reputed schools. His land is 5
miles from Kurla Railway Station. There is a Marathi
College and Chumbur High School which a reputed school,
close to the acquired land. He has also admitted that he has
not approached the BMC for development of the acquired
land. He has admitted the encroachments on the acquired
land. The plan produced by him is an admitted plan showing
the boundaries of the acquired land. There are 2 structures
which are chawls on it. He has given the measurements of
the chawls. There is a strip of land for passing and repassing
on the East side boundary line of the acquired land.
11. The claimant admits that the structures on the
acquired land are prior to 1962. He has not produced any
assessment of the Municipality. He has refuted that the
depreciated value of the structures would be zero and that
the SLAO has taken possession of the acquired land along
with the occupants on “as is where is” basis. Though the
claimant claims that the occupants had vacated, he has not
produced the letter of surrender from the occupants. The
structures on the acquired land must be taken to be fully
occupied. The possession receipt does not speak of vacant
possession of the structures. Hence the fact that the
possession has been taken as claimed by the respondent has
to be accepted. The total area of the land of the claimant is
572.50 m². Upon encroachment being seen on the acquired
land, the valuation of 368.25m² has been done by the SLAO
deducting 3.75m² from the land. The possession of the
acquired land was not taken or by the acquired body before
the award was passed. The claimant does not have
documentary evidence to show otherwise. The possession of
the acquired land was given to the acquiring body after an
inventory. Hence the encroachment is not shown by the
claimant to be after possession was taken.
12. The joint inventory taken by the parties has
shown 29 fruit trees and 11 fuel trees on the acquired land.
The crop of the fruit and a fuel entries was not disclosed by
the claimant to the SLAO. The value of the fruit bearing
trees is more than the fuel trees yet the demand is admitted
by the complainant to be the same. Consequently it is also
admitted that the yield of the trees vary.
13. Though the claimant claims that he handed over the
vacant possession after taking possession from the
occupants, the names of the occupants were neither given by
the claimant nor remembered by him in the crossexamination.
No letter of surrender or any such document is
produced by the claimant. The acquired land remained in
the possession of the claimant until 2001 – 2002. The
claimant shows rent received from the acquired land as also
the acquired land to be valued at only Rs.1.52 lakhs in his
income tax returns.
14. Considering the evidence of the claimant it is seen that
the acquired land has no access from Chembur or Kurla
Railway station except through adjoining lands to the East
and South which are fully encroached. The encroachments
are also of structures of the first floor having entry from
outside and showing independent occupation. There are no
specific facilities in or around the encroached land for
education, health, market, etc. The access road is narrow.
15. The fact that there is further encroachment before
possession was taken is also seen to be admitted to the
claimant. The land is seen to be having structures which are
not vacated, no evidence having been produced by the
claimant showing the tenants having vacated the structures,
the claimant being the only person who could produce such
evidence. Consequently the claimant's land could be
acquired only on “as is where is” basis and it would lie upon
the acquiring body to expend further amounts for and on
account of the occupants on the acquired land in the
admitted structures which are on the acquired land. In fact,
the acquiring body has got the tenants vacated from the
land.
16. The claimant has not led evidence of any positive
valuation. He has not produced any instance of sale in the
vicinity at the time of acquisition. Upon such evidence of the
claimant his case that the land is clear and valuable cannot
be accepted.
17. In view of the above evidence the claim that the
compensation granted by the SLAO which is less than the
amount shown in the ready reckoner and for 568.5m² of
land is seen to be adequate and reasonable though if any
positive evidence was led the valuation of the land would
have been seen from such evidence and the valuation of the
SLAO based upon 3 instances may itself not have been
considered.
18. The claimant has led evidence of an expert witness.
Though the integrity of the expert witness cannot be
questioned, his report leaves much to be desired. His
evidence shows that for his valuation he considered the
value of the land plus the depreciated cost of construction.
He enumerated the methods of calculation of the valuation
of the land by viz., comparable sale instances, development
method and capitalisation method.
19. He had taken search in the office of the sub registrar in
respect of the acquired land, which was indispensable. He
deposed that he himself did not carry out the search. His
assistant did. He knows that a fee is to be paid and a receipt
is given for such search. He could not produce it. He did
not know how many sub registrar's offices are concerned
with the property. He did not remember whether his
assistant was sent to the place where the property was
situated. He did not know where his assistant was directed
to attend. He did not know the sub registrar's jurisdiction.
He did not know whether the sub registrar's offices at
Chembur would have jurisdiction in respect of the acquired
land or whether that office had started at the relevant time.
20. He agreed that the valuation of the property depends
upon its location, size and condition and those details would
be required to be ascertained. His evidence shows that he
had visited the property at the time of making his report and
had not seen the structures. He failed to obtain details about
the use of the structures and the encumbrance by the
tenants. He did not know that the plans of the property
would be available with the TLR's office. What he knew was
that the occupants were not permanent tenants. He was
informed by the owner that it was something like guest
house. Though he knew that the information about the
tenants could be available from the municipal assessment
department, he did not obtain it. He admitted that he would
require to value the property not upon what he saw at the
time of his visit, but at the time of the notification for
acquisition. Yet he had not verified the documents.
21. His observations were on the basis of what he saw
when he visited the suit property to prepare his report.
Accordingly he observed that the plot was levelled, that
there were no structures and he did not know the precise
measurement. His entire report is based only on information
given by the client which he had not verified though it was
verifiable from the municipal records. His entire valuation
report without accounting for the size, type and extent of the
structures is, therefore, completely flawed. He admitted and
accepted that the valuation of a structure would be different
if it was authorised or not authorised and that the
authorisation could be seen from the plan of the structures
or of the suit property. Though being a professional
architect, he did not demand the documentation, but relied
upon the information of his client alone. He, therefore,
could not account for the fact whether the occupants were
“temporary or permanent”. Though admitting that the cost
of construction varies with the nature of construction, he has
not accounted for the construction. He only accepted the
information of the claimant with regard to the structures and
consequently he did not know the age of the structures or its
valuation with regard to the materials used for the
construction.
22. Though there were no trees when he visited the suit
property on the acquired land he has given valuation of the
trees. Despite admitting that the age and the yield of the
trees is important he has not taken any steps to ascertain
either. He has made the valuation on the basis of his own
judgment and without accounting for the age, size or the
yield of the trees. He has admitted that since there were no
trees on the acquired land when he inspected it, he only
relied upon the information of the claimant without even
verifying the report of the joint inspection.
23. He has mentioned about the movables on the acquired
land being the tank, fencing, pump etc. He has not verified
any documentary evidence with regard to these items. He
took no steps to collect those details. He knew that when an
electric meter is installed, it belongs to the electric company
and that the deposit would be refunded when the meter is
surrendered. He claimed for the meter without verifying the
refund obtained by his client. He disputed that it was the
property of the electric company. He claimed compensation
for 2 water tanks also on the oral information of the
claimant without verification of the nature and size of the
tank, the material used for its construction or the date of its
purchase.
24. He claimed for the fencing on the basis of the
information given by the claimant alone.
25. He claimed an area of 572.50 m² without physically
measuring the same and from the property register.
26. He admitted the concept of developed land. He
deposed that the acquired land is almost in the centre of the
developed area in the development plan. He was not shown
the joint inventory though he was aware that joint survey
was carried out. He did not verify the report of the joint
survey which is a public document and could be applied for
by him. Because at the time of his inspection there were no
structures on the land he concluded that the land was not
encroached upon.
27. He did not call for the income tax returns, the rent
received, the assessment bills, the plan of the land or any
such documentary evidence which would be easily available
with the claimant or which could be obtained from the
public authorities.
28. He has provided for loss of business for which he has
shown the value of the business, but he had not taken any
steps to ascertain what business the claimant was carrying
on on the acquired land. He would need the figures of the
income of the last 3 years prior to the acquisition. Since in
his opinion no other details to assess the compensation for
loss of business was necessary, he did not verify any
documents showing the business of the claimant to compute
its loss. He did not know that the claimant had claimed an
income of Rs.9000/ p.a from fire wood business and
Rs.15,000/ p.a as rent from the residential premises. He
computed the profits of the business of the claimant only
from the information given by the claimant.
29. He has admitted that he could not find any new
development around the acquired land at the time of his visit
also or the fact of no access to the land which is admitted by
the claimant as also the encroachments along the east side of
the land also admitted by the claimant. Consequently these
are the aspects not accounted for by him in his report.
30. He admitted that the Mahul village road was not fully
developed, and was to be widened in the revised sanctioned
development plan.
31. He claimed 30% advantage in respect of the acquired
land. For that purpose he has not compared the acquired
land with any other land to verify the physical condition. He
relied upon only his visit to the suit land at the time of the
report.
32. Upon seeing the evidence of the claimant and the
expert witness no case for interfering with the valuation put
by the SLAO is made out.
33. The acquiring body has also examined its witness. It is
for the claimant to prove his case. The evidence of the
acquiring body is immaterial.
34. The witness on behalf of the acquiring body has set out
the procedure that has been adopted for acquisition which is
not disputed. He has shown from the plan of the acquired
land the extent of the land that would go into road. He has
also produced a list of occupants / tenants on the acquired
land and 2 assessment bills – cum – receipts of 1950 – 1955
of the acquiring body. The acquired land had a number of
occupants a list of 21 occupants is signed by both the parties.
The acquiring body has had to get the occupants vacated.
They would have incurred expenses for that purpose because
it is an admitted fact that the chawls /structures on the
acquired land were there prior to 1962 and were hence
tolerable and accordingly compensation would have to be
paid to those occupants for getting the land vacated. It is
the land thus vacated that has been seen by the valuer
without reference to those documents.
35. Miss. Nichani only sought to read through the
cross examination of that witness. She has not shown any
particular aspect in such evidence which would show or
prove the case of the claimant in the face of the above
admissions of the claimant meticulously elicited in the cross
examination of the claimant and his expert witness. The
cursory reading of the cross examination of the witness of
the acquiring body shows no aspect worth detailing. The
cross examination of the witness of the acquiring body shows
the admission of the 3 chawls with 20 rooms as also 2 firewood
depots on the acquired land. The witness also admits
that there was a water tank but he does not know that the
water was supplied to the chawls from that tank. The
witness admits that there was rental income of the claimant
but makes a reference to the remarks given by the Executive
Engineer. The witness admits that there was farming around
the land and that the acquiring body has not obtained any
independent value as report. He has also not personally
ascertained the nature and position of the comparable lands
though instances of sale of 20022005 have been given. The
witness has, however, denied the income of the claimant
from rent or from the wood business or the fact that the land
is in the heart of Mahul village or the case about comparable
instances.
36. The entire cross examination with regard to the
structures, the income, the access to the land, the adjoining
lands, facilities, if any, the occupation in the chawls is wholly
irrelevant since the witness of the acquiring body is an
officer and would not have personal knowledge of the fact of
the land of the claimant. In fact his cross examination
proceeds initially on that basis.
37. The claimant must make out the case of enhancement.
The above evidence shows that no such case is made out.
38. In the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 1652
the principals for acquisition are set out and which have
been followed in a number of cases since. The factors which
are required to be kept in mind are :
1. The award is not a judgment which can be
considered as in appeal – The above facts which have
emanated from the cross examination would show why
this Court cannot sit an appeal as the claimant would
want.
2. The Court has to determine the market value on the
basis of material produced before it – No separate
material is produced to verify any market value in this
case.
3. The claimant has to show that the price offered for
his land is inadequate – this the claimant has completely
failed to do.
4. The market value would be what a hypothetical
purchaser would pay in an open market as a reasonable
price – such reasonable price has been offered by the
SLAO.
5. Only genuine comparable instances may be
considered – these would have to be shown by the
claimant; none is shown.
6. The proximity from the time and the situation
would be considered – the acquired land shows no
proximity to railway stations or other facilities for
education and / or the health.
7. The deduction of the market value would be upon
making adjustment for the plus and minus factors – which
has been amply done. The balancesheet of such plus and
minus factor would show that the suit land would fetch
less than the base value reflected in a readyreckoner,
which also is not to be accepted as correct. (see P. Ram
Reddy & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad
Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & ors. 1995
(2) SCC 305 and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
Sahaswan District Badaun Vs. Bipin Kumar & Anr.
2004(2) SCC 283.
8. There is no particular characteristic of the land
shown by the claimant which can demand or merit higher
compensation.
9. In the case of Special Deputy Collector and
another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others etc.
AIR 1997 SC 2625 it has been held that a fair and
reasonable and adequate market value is a question of
fact depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial
evidence and the probabilities arising in each case. The
guiding star or the acid test would be whether a
hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a
willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be
willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market
conditions. The Judge should sit in the arm chair and
seek an answer to the question relating to the market
value.
The best evidence of the value of the property are
the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land at the
time of which it is sold, the purpose for which it is sold,
the nature of the consideration and the manner in which
the transaction came to be brought out. A bonafide sale
transaction relating to the neighbouring lands in the
vicinity would be of help. Such land should be similar to
the acquired land and possess similar features of the land
acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired. In this
case the claimant has led no evidence of any sale
transaction, the proximity in point of time or proximity to
the land itself.
It is further observed that treating the entire village
as one unit and uniformly determining compensation on
that basis not sustainable in law. This is precisely what the
SLAO has not done as he has verified the value taking
into account the plus and minus factors of the acquired
land more specially the fact that it is away from Chembur
and Kurla Railway stations and has no particular
amenities and facilities around it.
The ultimate test laid down in the judgment is that
the market value should be just, adequate and reasonable,
which in this case is apparent.
Consequently, it is held in the judgment that the
burden of proof always is on the claimant to establish that
the land is possessed of advantageous features and are
therefore, capable of fetching higher market value.
39. Considering the facts of this case alongside the settled
law it is seen that the SLAO has given a reasonable market
value by way of compensation. The claimant has not
discharged the onus which lies upon him to show any
advantageous factors of his land to merit any higher
compensation. The claimant has not roduced a single
instance of the sale of land in the vicinity at the relevant
time. The compensation is indeed a reasonable market
value.
40. Though the claimant claims compensation for 3.75m²
of land deducted upon encroachment, the claimant has also
not proved that the acquired land was not encroached upon
at the time the possession was handed over to the extent of
3.75 m² and that there was encroachment after possession
was taken. Hence he cannot obtain any value for such land
also. Hence the Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative
and Issue No.2 is answered in the negative .
41. Issue No. 3: Consequently the claimant is not entitled
to any enhancement.
42. Hence the following order:
1. The claim for higher compensation is
dismissed. The Reference is answered
accordingly.
(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
Print Page
Though the integrity of the expert witness cannot be
questioned, his report leaves much to be desired. His
evidence shows that for his valuation he considered the
value of the land plus the depreciated cost of construction.
He enumerated the methods of calculation of the valuation
of the land by viz., comparable sale instances, development
method and capitalisation method.
19. He had taken search in the office of the sub registrar in
respect of the acquired land, which was indispensable. He
deposed that he himself did not carry out the search. His
assistant did. He knows that a fee is to be paid and a receipt
is given for such search. He could not produce it. He did
not know how many sub registrar's offices are concerned
with the property. He did not remember whether his
assistant was sent to the place where the property was
situated. He did not know where his assistant was directed
to attend. He did not know the sub registrar's jurisdiction.
He did not know whether the sub registrar's offices at
Chembur would have jurisdiction in respect of the acquired
land or whether that office had started at the relevant time.
20. He agreed that the valuation of the property depends
upon its location, size and condition and those details would
be required to be ascertained. His evidence shows that he
had visited the property at the time of making his report and
had not seen the structures. He failed to obtain details about
the use of the structures and the encumbrance by the
tenants. He did not know that the plans of the property
would be available with the TLR's office. What he knew was
that the occupants were not permanent tenants. He was
informed by the owner that it was something like guest
house. Though he knew that the information about the
tenants could be available from the municipal assessment
department, he did not obtain it. He admitted that he would
require to value the property not upon what he saw at the
time of his visit, but at the time of the notification for
acquisition. Yet he had not verified the documents.
21. His observations were on the basis of what he saw
when he visited the suit property to prepare his report.
Accordingly he observed that the plot was levelled, that
there were no structures and he did not know the precise
measurement. His entire report is based only on information
given by the client which he had not verified though it was
verifiable from the municipal records. His entire valuation
report without accounting for the size, type and extent of the
structures is, therefore, completely flawed. He admitted and
accepted that the valuation of a structure would be different
if it was authorised or not authorised and that the
authorisation could be seen from the plan of the structures
or of the suit property. Though being a professional
architect, he did not demand the documentation, but relied
upon the information of his client alone. He, therefore,
could not account for the fact whether the occupants were
“temporary or permanent”. Though admitting that the cost
of construction varies with the nature of construction, he has
not accounted for the construction. He only accepted the
information of the claimant with regard to the structures and
consequently he did not know the age of the structures or its
valuation with regard to the materials used for the
construction.
22. Though there were no trees when he visited the suit
property on the acquired land he has given valuation of the
trees. Despite admitting that the age and the yield of the
trees is important he has not taken any steps to ascertain
either. He has made the valuation on the basis of his own
judgment and without accounting for the age, size or the
yield of the trees. He has admitted that since there were no
trees on the acquired land when he inspected it, he only
relied upon the information of the claimant without even
verifying the report of the joint inspection.
23. He has mentioned about the movables on the acquired
land being the tank, fencing, pump etc. He has not verified
any documentary evidence with regard to these items. He
took no steps to collect those details. He knew that when an
electric meter is installed, it belongs to the electric company
and that the deposit would be refunded when the meter is
surrendered. He claimed for the meter without verifying the
refund obtained by his client. He disputed that it was the
property of the electric company. He claimed compensation
for 2 water tanks also on the oral information of the
claimant without verification of the nature and size of the
tank, the material used for its construction or the date of its
purchase.
24. He claimed for the fencing on the basis of the
information given by the claimant alone.
25. He claimed an area of 572.50 m² without physically
measuring the same and from the property register.
26. He admitted the concept of developed land. He
deposed that the acquired land is almost in the centre of the
developed area in the development plan. He was not shown
the joint inventory though he was aware that joint survey
was carried out. He did not verify the report of the joint
survey which is a public document and could be applied for
by him. Because at the time of his inspection there were no
structures on the land he concluded that the land was not
encroached upon.
27. He did not call for the income tax returns, the rent
received, the assessment bills, the plan of the land or any
such documentary evidence which would be easily available
with the claimant or which could be obtained from the
public authorities.
28. He has provided for loss of business for which he has
shown the value of the business, but he had not taken any
steps to ascertain what business the claimant was carrying
on on the acquired land. He would need the figures of the
income of the last 3 years prior to the acquisition. Since in
his opinion no other details to assess the compensation for
loss of business was necessary, he did not verify any
documents showing the business of the claimant to compute
its loss. He did not know that the claimant had claimed an
income of Rs.9000/ p.a from fire wood business and
Rs.15,000/ p.a as rent from the residential premises. He
computed the profits of the business of the claimant only
from the information given by the claimant.
29. He has admitted that he could not find any new
development around the acquired land at the time of his visit
also or the fact of no access to the land which is admitted by
the claimant as also the encroachments along the east side of
the land also admitted by the claimant. Consequently these
are the aspects not accounted for by him in his report.
30. He admitted that the Mahul village road was not fully
developed, and was to be widened in the revised sanctioned
development plan.
31. He claimed 30% advantage in respect of the acquired
land. For that purpose he has not compared the acquired
land with any other land to verify the physical condition. He
relied upon only his visit to the suit land at the time of the
report.
32. Upon seeing the evidence of the claimant and the
expert witness no case for interfering with the valuation put
by the SLAO is made out.
The above evidence shows that no such case is made out.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2006
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (7)
And
Pundalik Raghunath Mahulkar ...Claimant
And
The Commissioner of Gr. Mumbai,
Municipal Corporation, Mumbai
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Citation: 2015(2)ABR730, 2015(4)ALLMR795, 2015(2)BomCR497, 2015(4)MhLj778
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment: 2nd March,2015
1. This land acquisition reference is taken out under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1882 (LAR) for
enhancement of compensation. The acquisition of land is
not in dispute. It has been acquired for a Municipal retail
market and for municipal housing. The compensation paid
has been claimed to be inadequate by the claimant. The
claimant would have to prove the inadequacy. The claimant
has not led evidence of any sale instance in the vicinity
during the period of acquisition. The claimant has led
evidence on the inadequacy of the compensation granted.
He would also contend that the land acquired on CTS No.
151 admeasuring 572.50 m² has been acquired of which is
the owner and the entire land has not been taken into
consideration for the payment of compensation. The
acquiring body which is a municipality has also led evidence
on the precise position of the land to show that the
compensation which has been granted by the SLAO is
adequate and sufficient. The case is entirely dependent
upon oral evidence in view of the admitted position of the
land, its situation, and the position of the facilities and
amenities around the land. It would therefore have to be
determined, taking into account the oral evidence led by the
parties as to whether additional compensation is required to
be granted.
2. The material issues between the parties are :
1. Whether the compensation fixed by the SLAO is
adequate and sufficient.
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any
additional compensation.
3. What relief, if any, is the claimant entitled to ?
3. The claimant has led evidence and has been crossexamined.
The claimant has also led evidence of an expert
witness to show the value of the acquired land. The officer
of the acquiring body has also led evidence on behalf of the
acquiring body. These witnesses are crossexamined with
regard to the exact position of the suit land alongside the
other lands in the vicinity.
4. The issues shall have to be decided upon such oral
evidence. Issue numbers 1 and 2 shall be decided together.
5. Issue Nos.1 and 2: The claimant has claimed that the
entire land is 572.50 m². He has claimed that the 3
instances cited by the SLAO are not comparable with his
land.
6. With regard to the features of his land, he has deposed
that it is in the heart of Mahul village. The entire
surrounding area is developed. There are market facilities,
school facilities, and transport facilities in and surrounding
his plot. All the other facilities are available at a short
distance. The market rate in the ready reckoner was
Rs.5400 per square metre at the relevant time. He,
therefore, claims that the SLAO wrongly awarded
compensation at the rate of 2970 per sq.mtr., though his
land is developed with structures, fencing and trees. He has
made grievance that the SLAO has not considered the
valuation report which he submitted to him for calculating
the market value. He has challenged the valuation of the
trees in the acquired land.
7. He claims that he has fruit bearing trees and fuel
bearing trees. He has disputed the valuation of the
structures on the acquired land at Rs.1.31 lakhs fixed by the
SLAO without reasons. He claims that the executive
engineer, PWD valued the structures at Rs.3.82 lakhs which
was not considered by the SLAO. He claims that the
structures are prior to 1960 and have been assessed by the
BMC. He is aggrieved that he used the acquired land for his
residence and had to shift along with his household articles
and materials. He also had a Wakhar on the suit land from
which he earned an income of Rs.1.50. He had 20 tenanted
structures on the suit land from which he received a rental
income of Rs. 2 lakhs. He relied upon his income tax returns
for the relevant years. He had put up a compound with 47
iron bars and iron rope, had pumps and water storage tank
on the acquired land.
8. He claims that his land was slightly encroached upon
by the occupant of the adjoining land. That encroachment is
3.75 m² which took place whilst the land was in the
possession of the respondents. He, therefore, claims that the
land of which possession was taken was 572.50m². He has
taken exception to the SLAO reducing the compensation to
the extent of Rs.18761 on account of the encroachment on
3.75 m² of land.
9. He, therefore, claims the market price of 6480 per
square metre taking into account the cost of the structures,
trees, and expenses for change of his residence, loss of
income, rental income for 10 years and the compound wall.
10. He has been crossexamined by the acquiring
body. His crossexamination reveals that there are
government lands on the east and south of the acquired
land. The land on CTS No.150 which is adjoining his land is
half encroached. The land on CTS No. 152, which is also
adjoining his land, is fully encroached. He claims that the
structures on CTS No.150 are temporary structures and
structures on CTS No.152 are temporary but pucca
structures. He says that those structures are not regular
ground +1 storey structures, but an extension of ground
storey having access from the outside (which would show
the construction of the first floor). He has admitted that
there is an unathorised wall on the North of the acquired
land and the property to the south and west of his property
are in “no development” zone. On the East there is a
refinery. There is only one approach road to Mehul village
from Chambur which is a 60 feet wide road and allows only
one vehicle each way. Chembur is 4 miles from the acquired
land. In the entire area there are no high – rise structures;
the structures are of 2 or 3 storeys. There are no hospital
facilites in Mehul village, but there are clinics and
dispensaries. There are no reputed schools. His land is 5
miles from Kurla Railway Station. There is a Marathi
College and Chumbur High School which a reputed school,
close to the acquired land. He has also admitted that he has
not approached the BMC for development of the acquired
land. He has admitted the encroachments on the acquired
land. The plan produced by him is an admitted plan showing
the boundaries of the acquired land. There are 2 structures
which are chawls on it. He has given the measurements of
the chawls. There is a strip of land for passing and repassing
on the East side boundary line of the acquired land.
11. The claimant admits that the structures on the
acquired land are prior to 1962. He has not produced any
assessment of the Municipality. He has refuted that the
depreciated value of the structures would be zero and that
the SLAO has taken possession of the acquired land along
with the occupants on “as is where is” basis. Though the
claimant claims that the occupants had vacated, he has not
produced the letter of surrender from the occupants. The
structures on the acquired land must be taken to be fully
occupied. The possession receipt does not speak of vacant
possession of the structures. Hence the fact that the
possession has been taken as claimed by the respondent has
to be accepted. The total area of the land of the claimant is
572.50 m². Upon encroachment being seen on the acquired
land, the valuation of 368.25m² has been done by the SLAO
deducting 3.75m² from the land. The possession of the
acquired land was not taken or by the acquired body before
the award was passed. The claimant does not have
documentary evidence to show otherwise. The possession of
the acquired land was given to the acquiring body after an
inventory. Hence the encroachment is not shown by the
claimant to be after possession was taken.
12. The joint inventory taken by the parties has
shown 29 fruit trees and 11 fuel trees on the acquired land.
The crop of the fruit and a fuel entries was not disclosed by
the claimant to the SLAO. The value of the fruit bearing
trees is more than the fuel trees yet the demand is admitted
by the complainant to be the same. Consequently it is also
admitted that the yield of the trees vary.
13. Though the claimant claims that he handed over the
vacant possession after taking possession from the
occupants, the names of the occupants were neither given by
the claimant nor remembered by him in the crossexamination.
No letter of surrender or any such document is
produced by the claimant. The acquired land remained in
the possession of the claimant until 2001 – 2002. The
claimant shows rent received from the acquired land as also
the acquired land to be valued at only Rs.1.52 lakhs in his
income tax returns.
14. Considering the evidence of the claimant it is seen that
the acquired land has no access from Chembur or Kurla
Railway station except through adjoining lands to the East
and South which are fully encroached. The encroachments
are also of structures of the first floor having entry from
outside and showing independent occupation. There are no
specific facilities in or around the encroached land for
education, health, market, etc. The access road is narrow.
15. The fact that there is further encroachment before
possession was taken is also seen to be admitted to the
claimant. The land is seen to be having structures which are
not vacated, no evidence having been produced by the
claimant showing the tenants having vacated the structures,
the claimant being the only person who could produce such
evidence. Consequently the claimant's land could be
acquired only on “as is where is” basis and it would lie upon
the acquiring body to expend further amounts for and on
account of the occupants on the acquired land in the
admitted structures which are on the acquired land. In fact,
the acquiring body has got the tenants vacated from the
land.
16. The claimant has not led evidence of any positive
valuation. He has not produced any instance of sale in the
vicinity at the time of acquisition. Upon such evidence of the
claimant his case that the land is clear and valuable cannot
be accepted.
17. In view of the above evidence the claim that the
compensation granted by the SLAO which is less than the
amount shown in the ready reckoner and for 568.5m² of
land is seen to be adequate and reasonable though if any
positive evidence was led the valuation of the land would
have been seen from such evidence and the valuation of the
SLAO based upon 3 instances may itself not have been
considered.
18. The claimant has led evidence of an expert witness.
Though the integrity of the expert witness cannot be
questioned, his report leaves much to be desired. His
evidence shows that for his valuation he considered the
value of the land plus the depreciated cost of construction.
He enumerated the methods of calculation of the valuation
of the land by viz., comparable sale instances, development
method and capitalisation method.
19. He had taken search in the office of the sub registrar in
respect of the acquired land, which was indispensable. He
deposed that he himself did not carry out the search. His
assistant did. He knows that a fee is to be paid and a receipt
is given for such search. He could not produce it. He did
not know how many sub registrar's offices are concerned
with the property. He did not remember whether his
assistant was sent to the place where the property was
situated. He did not know where his assistant was directed
to attend. He did not know the sub registrar's jurisdiction.
He did not know whether the sub registrar's offices at
Chembur would have jurisdiction in respect of the acquired
land or whether that office had started at the relevant time.
20. He agreed that the valuation of the property depends
upon its location, size and condition and those details would
be required to be ascertained. His evidence shows that he
had visited the property at the time of making his report and
had not seen the structures. He failed to obtain details about
the use of the structures and the encumbrance by the
tenants. He did not know that the plans of the property
would be available with the TLR's office. What he knew was
that the occupants were not permanent tenants. He was
informed by the owner that it was something like guest
house. Though he knew that the information about the
tenants could be available from the municipal assessment
department, he did not obtain it. He admitted that he would
require to value the property not upon what he saw at the
time of his visit, but at the time of the notification for
acquisition. Yet he had not verified the documents.
21. His observations were on the basis of what he saw
when he visited the suit property to prepare his report.
Accordingly he observed that the plot was levelled, that
there were no structures and he did not know the precise
measurement. His entire report is based only on information
given by the client which he had not verified though it was
verifiable from the municipal records. His entire valuation
report without accounting for the size, type and extent of the
structures is, therefore, completely flawed. He admitted and
accepted that the valuation of a structure would be different
if it was authorised or not authorised and that the
authorisation could be seen from the plan of the structures
or of the suit property. Though being a professional
architect, he did not demand the documentation, but relied
upon the information of his client alone. He, therefore,
could not account for the fact whether the occupants were
“temporary or permanent”. Though admitting that the cost
of construction varies with the nature of construction, he has
not accounted for the construction. He only accepted the
information of the claimant with regard to the structures and
consequently he did not know the age of the structures or its
valuation with regard to the materials used for the
construction.
22. Though there were no trees when he visited the suit
property on the acquired land he has given valuation of the
trees. Despite admitting that the age and the yield of the
trees is important he has not taken any steps to ascertain
either. He has made the valuation on the basis of his own
judgment and without accounting for the age, size or the
yield of the trees. He has admitted that since there were no
trees on the acquired land when he inspected it, he only
relied upon the information of the claimant without even
verifying the report of the joint inspection.
23. He has mentioned about the movables on the acquired
land being the tank, fencing, pump etc. He has not verified
any documentary evidence with regard to these items. He
took no steps to collect those details. He knew that when an
electric meter is installed, it belongs to the electric company
and that the deposit would be refunded when the meter is
surrendered. He claimed for the meter without verifying the
refund obtained by his client. He disputed that it was the
property of the electric company. He claimed compensation
for 2 water tanks also on the oral information of the
claimant without verification of the nature and size of the
tank, the material used for its construction or the date of its
purchase.
24. He claimed for the fencing on the basis of the
information given by the claimant alone.
25. He claimed an area of 572.50 m² without physically
measuring the same and from the property register.
26. He admitted the concept of developed land. He
deposed that the acquired land is almost in the centre of the
developed area in the development plan. He was not shown
the joint inventory though he was aware that joint survey
was carried out. He did not verify the report of the joint
survey which is a public document and could be applied for
by him. Because at the time of his inspection there were no
structures on the land he concluded that the land was not
encroached upon.
27. He did not call for the income tax returns, the rent
received, the assessment bills, the plan of the land or any
such documentary evidence which would be easily available
with the claimant or which could be obtained from the
public authorities.
28. He has provided for loss of business for which he has
shown the value of the business, but he had not taken any
steps to ascertain what business the claimant was carrying
on on the acquired land. He would need the figures of the
income of the last 3 years prior to the acquisition. Since in
his opinion no other details to assess the compensation for
loss of business was necessary, he did not verify any
documents showing the business of the claimant to compute
its loss. He did not know that the claimant had claimed an
income of Rs.9000/ p.a from fire wood business and
Rs.15,000/ p.a as rent from the residential premises. He
computed the profits of the business of the claimant only
from the information given by the claimant.
29. He has admitted that he could not find any new
development around the acquired land at the time of his visit
also or the fact of no access to the land which is admitted by
the claimant as also the encroachments along the east side of
the land also admitted by the claimant. Consequently these
are the aspects not accounted for by him in his report.
30. He admitted that the Mahul village road was not fully
developed, and was to be widened in the revised sanctioned
development plan.
31. He claimed 30% advantage in respect of the acquired
land. For that purpose he has not compared the acquired
land with any other land to verify the physical condition. He
relied upon only his visit to the suit land at the time of the
report.
32. Upon seeing the evidence of the claimant and the
expert witness no case for interfering with the valuation put
by the SLAO is made out.
33. The acquiring body has also examined its witness. It is
for the claimant to prove his case. The evidence of the
acquiring body is immaterial.
34. The witness on behalf of the acquiring body has set out
the procedure that has been adopted for acquisition which is
not disputed. He has shown from the plan of the acquired
land the extent of the land that would go into road. He has
also produced a list of occupants / tenants on the acquired
land and 2 assessment bills – cum – receipts of 1950 – 1955
of the acquiring body. The acquired land had a number of
occupants a list of 21 occupants is signed by both the parties.
The acquiring body has had to get the occupants vacated.
They would have incurred expenses for that purpose because
it is an admitted fact that the chawls /structures on the
acquired land were there prior to 1962 and were hence
tolerable and accordingly compensation would have to be
paid to those occupants for getting the land vacated. It is
the land thus vacated that has been seen by the valuer
without reference to those documents.
35. Miss. Nichani only sought to read through the
cross examination of that witness. She has not shown any
particular aspect in such evidence which would show or
prove the case of the claimant in the face of the above
admissions of the claimant meticulously elicited in the cross
examination of the claimant and his expert witness. The
cursory reading of the cross examination of the witness of
the acquiring body shows no aspect worth detailing. The
cross examination of the witness of the acquiring body shows
the admission of the 3 chawls with 20 rooms as also 2 firewood
depots on the acquired land. The witness also admits
that there was a water tank but he does not know that the
water was supplied to the chawls from that tank. The
witness admits that there was rental income of the claimant
but makes a reference to the remarks given by the Executive
Engineer. The witness admits that there was farming around
the land and that the acquiring body has not obtained any
independent value as report. He has also not personally
ascertained the nature and position of the comparable lands
though instances of sale of 20022005 have been given. The
witness has, however, denied the income of the claimant
from rent or from the wood business or the fact that the land
is in the heart of Mahul village or the case about comparable
instances.
36. The entire cross examination with regard to the
structures, the income, the access to the land, the adjoining
lands, facilities, if any, the occupation in the chawls is wholly
irrelevant since the witness of the acquiring body is an
officer and would not have personal knowledge of the fact of
the land of the claimant. In fact his cross examination
proceeds initially on that basis.
37. The claimant must make out the case of enhancement.
The above evidence shows that no such case is made out.
38. In the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 1652
the principals for acquisition are set out and which have
been followed in a number of cases since. The factors which
are required to be kept in mind are :
1. The award is not a judgment which can be
considered as in appeal – The above facts which have
emanated from the cross examination would show why
this Court cannot sit an appeal as the claimant would
want.
2. The Court has to determine the market value on the
basis of material produced before it – No separate
material is produced to verify any market value in this
case.
3. The claimant has to show that the price offered for
his land is inadequate – this the claimant has completely
failed to do.
4. The market value would be what a hypothetical
purchaser would pay in an open market as a reasonable
price – such reasonable price has been offered by the
SLAO.
5. Only genuine comparable instances may be
considered – these would have to be shown by the
claimant; none is shown.
6. The proximity from the time and the situation
would be considered – the acquired land shows no
proximity to railway stations or other facilities for
education and / or the health.
7. The deduction of the market value would be upon
making adjustment for the plus and minus factors – which
has been amply done. The balancesheet of such plus and
minus factor would show that the suit land would fetch
less than the base value reflected in a readyreckoner,
which also is not to be accepted as correct. (see P. Ram
Reddy & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad
Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & ors. 1995
(2) SCC 305 and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
Sahaswan District Badaun Vs. Bipin Kumar & Anr.
2004(2) SCC 283.
8. There is no particular characteristic of the land
shown by the claimant which can demand or merit higher
compensation.
9. In the case of Special Deputy Collector and
another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others etc.
AIR 1997 SC 2625 it has been held that a fair and
reasonable and adequate market value is a question of
fact depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial
evidence and the probabilities arising in each case. The
guiding star or the acid test would be whether a
hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a
willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be
willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market
conditions. The Judge should sit in the arm chair and
seek an answer to the question relating to the market
value.
The best evidence of the value of the property are
the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land at the
time of which it is sold, the purpose for which it is sold,
the nature of the consideration and the manner in which
the transaction came to be brought out. A bonafide sale
transaction relating to the neighbouring lands in the
vicinity would be of help. Such land should be similar to
the acquired land and possess similar features of the land
acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired. In this
case the claimant has led no evidence of any sale
transaction, the proximity in point of time or proximity to
the land itself.
It is further observed that treating the entire village
as one unit and uniformly determining compensation on
that basis not sustainable in law. This is precisely what the
SLAO has not done as he has verified the value taking
into account the plus and minus factors of the acquired
land more specially the fact that it is away from Chembur
and Kurla Railway stations and has no particular
amenities and facilities around it.
The ultimate test laid down in the judgment is that
the market value should be just, adequate and reasonable,
which in this case is apparent.
Consequently, it is held in the judgment that the
burden of proof always is on the claimant to establish that
the land is possessed of advantageous features and are
therefore, capable of fetching higher market value.
39. Considering the facts of this case alongside the settled
law it is seen that the SLAO has given a reasonable market
value by way of compensation. The claimant has not
discharged the onus which lies upon him to show any
advantageous factors of his land to merit any higher
compensation. The claimant has not roduced a single
instance of the sale of land in the vicinity at the relevant
time. The compensation is indeed a reasonable market
value.
40. Though the claimant claims compensation for 3.75m²
of land deducted upon encroachment, the claimant has also
not proved that the acquired land was not encroached upon
at the time the possession was handed over to the extent of
3.75 m² and that there was encroachment after possession
was taken. Hence he cannot obtain any value for such land
also. Hence the Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative
and Issue No.2 is answered in the negative .
41. Issue No. 3: Consequently the claimant is not entitled
to any enhancement.
42. Hence the following order:
1. The claim for higher compensation is
dismissed. The Reference is answered
accordingly.
(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment