How to prove loss of business or profit?

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. 

{28}

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

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence of expert valuer in land acquisition case?

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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 1994
1 Masaji s/o Gyanoji Thoke,

V
 The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING
THE JUDGMENT : 07.3.2011
Citation: 2011(3)ALLMR161, 2011(3)BomCR633, 2011(113)BOMLR1070

Print Page