That takes me to the testimony of the appellant's expert witness PW2 Arvind Paradkar, who stated that he is a Government recognized architect and performed valuation work of Government, SemiGovernment, etc. Organizations and handled about 1500 cases in the capacity of valuer and architect, and he also stated that he personally visited the house of the appellant and prepared the plan of valuation and calculated the cost of the existing house in question and further stated that the valuation shown in the valuation report prepared by him is based on District Scheduled Rates of the Government at the relevant time. He also stated that the valuation report and the map bear his signature and he identified the same and admitted that the contents thereof are correct, and accordingly, same were exhibited as Exhs. 33 and 34 respectively. However, during crossexamination he admitted that he has not produced the documentary evidence to show his expertise, as well as not produced the District Scheduled Rates and the market value at the relevant time, and hence, suggestion was given to PW1 Masaji and PW2 Arvind Paradkar that PW2 Arvind Paradkar never visited the house acquired, but same were denied by both of them.
Considering the valuation report Exh. 33, map Exh. 34 and the testimony of PW2 expert witness architect Arvind Paradkar, it is material to note that PW2 Arvind Paradkar has not stated the details regarding his visit to the acquired house in question and regarding the measurement of the said house, as also as regards the built up area and open space thereof, as well as the basis and foundation for calculation of its valuation. Moreover, he has no where stated in his deposition that what test he had applied for arriving at the conclusion of rates of construction stated in his valuation report, as well as he has not stated the methods and parameters, which he applied for calculation of valuation of the acquired house in question headwise, and also he has nowhere stated in what manner and how he arrived at the rates of construction as stated in the valuation report, and therefore, it is amply clear that PW2 Architect Arvind Paradkar has not proved the very contents of the said valuation report and mere exhibiting the said report stating that the valuation report bears his signature and its contents are correct, will not suffice the purpose, since the valuation report and the testimony of PW2 Arvind Paradkar are the expert's evidence.
Coming to the map Exh.34, which has been prepared by PW2 Architect Arvind Trimbak Paradkar, since it bears his signature, admittedly the area of the acquired house is 30.10 Sq. Mtrs.; whereas the area stated in the said map Exh. 34 discloses the measurement of the house as 42.90 Sq. Mtrs., and therefore, there is variance in the area of the acquired house as stated in the award and the said map Exh. 34. Moreover, the architect PW2 Arvind Paradkar has no where stated in his deposition the date on which he visited the acquired house and when and how he measured the said house, as well as the manner of preparing the said map and the method of preparation of area statement thereof, and the basis of scale thereof is not mentioned in the said map and even the said map discloses the stamp as Vastukala, Architect and Engineer, Parbhani, and signed as PW2 Arvind Trimbak Paradkar as Architect, but neither the said map Exh. 34 or deposition of PW2 Architect Arvind Trimbak Paradkar discloses whether PW2 Arvind Paradkar is proprietor or partner thereof, and all these shortcomings and lacunae create suspicion about the said map Exh. 34, and further even the area statement of the said map does not disclose the built up area and open space of the said house.
18 Thus, it is amply clear from the testimony of PW2 Architect Arvind Paradkar, an expert witness, that he has not narrated the contents of valuation report Exh. 33 and further the area statement in the map Exh. 34 of the acquired house differ from the area of the acquired house given in the award and even PW2 Arvind Paradkar admitted that he has neither produced the documentary evidence to show his expertise nor produced the District Scheduled Rates and market value at the relevant time, and therefore, the said expert evidence i.e. the testimony of PW2 Arvind Paradkar and valuation report Exh. 33 as well as map Exh. 34 come under the doldrums and do not take the appellant's case any further in constructive manner to consider the same for enhancement in the compensation as claimed by the appellant.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Masaji s/o Gyanoji Thoke Vs. The State of Maharashtra And Anr.
Judge : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.
Decided On : Mar-07-2011
Acts : Land Acquisition Act - Sections 11, 18, 4
Case Number : FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 1994
Citation; 2011 (3) ALL MR161 Bom,2011(3) Bom C R 633
