SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. PILLOO F ANTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short " the Act" ) arises out of the Award given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short "the SLAO") dated 27th October, 1987.

(2.) NOTIFICATION under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 21st October, 1982 acquiring the land bearing C. S. No.1869 (plot No.28 of Mint Road) admeasuring 681. 16 sq. mtrs. Since 1940 there is a ground plus five floors building on the plot. The total plinth area is 40002 sq. ft. with an FSI of 5 to6.The 6th floor with a total carpet area of 3460 sq. ft. was constructed without permission of the Claimants by Indian Navy, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, the acquiring body ( hereinafter referred to as "the acquired property" ). The public purpose of the acquisition is "housing offices of the Indian Navy for Ministry of Defence". The acquired property is leased to the Indian Naval Department since 1-12-1940. The NOTIFICATION dated 21st October, 1982 was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 18th November, 1982. The Claimant No.2 is the lessee of the property under a Deed of Assignment dated 23rd December, 1942 for the period of 999 years. The Claimant No.1 is the lessor of the property. On reference to this Court under Section 31 (2) of the Act, by consent, on 8th July, 1999 it has been decided that Claimant No.1 will get 30 per cent and claimant No.2 will get 70 per cent of the total compensation.

(3.) THE learned Counsel submits that the valuation made by the SLAO is just and fair. THEre are no sale instances produced by the claimants. On the other hand SLAO has relied on two sale instances. He has used land plus building method. He had also gone into the rental method and rightly discarded the same. It is submitted that for arriving at the correct valuation the "alice Building" instance is proper. This acquisition was the subject matter of LAR No.14 of 1986. THE building has been valued on a tenanted basis, having similar location, dimensions and potential. In that case the relevant date was 29-5-1975. If Rs. 1500/- is taken as the base for 1975, the rise comes to8.5 per annum on a simple basis. Thus, it cannot be said that the value of the land at Rs. 2500/- per sq. mtr. has been done arbitrarily or blindly. With regard to the building, SLAO has given a sum of Rs. 48,00,240/ -. In support of this valuation, learned Counsel relies on para 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Kumar Tandon and Ors. V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1996 S. C. 2710 ). THE learned Counsel has also relied on the commentary "principles and practice of Valuations (Land and Houses), 4th Edn. by John A. Parks". Relevant extract of page 91 therein reads as follows : " THE depreciated value of a building is not always the correct figure to add to the value of the land, to arrive at the value of a property. THE building may have to be valued as old materials. . . " " Before the war in 1938-39 the old material value of a structure was approximately 10 per cent of the prime cost". ". . . . THE value today (1969) varies between 15 and 20 per cent of the prime cost of the building according to the amount of steel used in the construction and the condition of the doors and windows. " THE learned Counsel says that the building has to be valued only as old materials. In view of the above, Ms. Shastri submits that the Reference ought to be rejected.