HARSHAD SUNDERLAL MANIAR Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Respondents waive service. By consent appeal is taken up for hearing.

(2.) THE appellant is a Government approved valuer. He is aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paras 11 and 16 of the impugned judgment and order dated 8-3-2002 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1 of 1999. Briefly stated the facts are that the first floor of the property bearing CTS No. 2023 of Mandavi Division belonging to the respondent No. 3 was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. During the acquisition proceedings the respondent No. 3 had filed his claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 3000 per sq. ft. In support of his claim the respondent No. 3 submitted valuation report dated 20-7-1994 prepared by the appellant. The appellant in his report referred to three sale instances including instance of sale of CS No. 1784 of Mandavi Division under registered conveyance deed dated 28-5-1987. It seems that the office of the Special Land Acquisition collected about 6 sale transactions from the office of Sub-Registrar. The Land Acquisition Officer was of the view that none of the transactions relied by the claimants or collected by the office of the Land Acquisition Officer were comparable and suggested the rate of Rs. 3150 per sq. ft as reasonable on the basis of rates approved by the Deputy Director of Town Planning and Valuer. However, this proposal was not sanctioned by the Commissioner Konkan Division who fixed the valuation at Rs. 1800 per sq. ft. On 15-2-1996 the Land Acquisition Officer declared the Award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act under which the market price of the property is determined at the rate of Rs. 1800 per sq. ft. The respondent No. 3 filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation, in which the respondent No. 3 claimed market value of the property under acquisition at the rate of Rs. 3000 per sq. ft as against Rs. 1800 per sq. ft awarded in the Award. In the said reference evidence of the appellant was recorded before Baam, J. , in the course whereof valuation report dated 20-7-1994 of the appellant and certified copy of the sale deed dated 20-5-1987 in respect of sale of property bearing CS No. 1734 of Mandavi Division and plan showing instance of sale and land under acquisition taken on record and marked as Exhibits Cl, C2 and C3 respectively. In his evidence recorded on 8-2-2002 the appellant deposed that considering the comparable instances of sale of property bearing CS No. 1784 of Mandavi Division vide deed of conveyance dated 20-5-1987 pursuant to the agreement for sale executed on 18-2-1987 and 15% rise per annum from the date of the agreement till the date of publication of notification under section 4 on 13-1-1993 on compound basis and considering the location of the property under acquisition, the appellant had valued the property under acquisition at Rs. 3219. 66 per sq. ft. The appellant was cross-examined by the learned Counsel appearing for the responded Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) THE reference was thereafter heard by another Single Judge (Khanwilkar, J.) who after detailed analysis of evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the gross market value of the suit property would be Rs. 2700 sq. ft. The learned Judge, however, held that having regard to the fact that the suit property is admittedly 30 to 40 years old deduction of 20% will have to be provided for in view of the fact that the suit property is situated on the 1st floor as well as the fact that it was reserved for public hall and secondary school in the development plan and deduction of 20% from the amount of Rs. 2700 per sq. ft fair market price of the suit property will have to be determined at the rate of Rs. 2160 per sq. ft. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the valuation done by the appellant to arrive at a conclusion that the property under acquisition should be valued at Rs. 3219. 66 or for that matter Rs. 3000 per sq. ft. was demonstrably incorrect, false and misleading, if not dishonest. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellant had attempted to mislead the Court in arriving at a just conclusion and this amounts to a penal offence. The learned Judge therefore referred the case of the appellant to the appropriate Government to take suitable corrective measures including to examine as to whether he should be allowed to practice as Government approved valuer in future. The learned Judge also directed to refer the case of the appellant to the Institute of Engineers, Institute of valuers and Institute of Surveyors with whom he is associated for taking appropriate corrective action against him. The relevant observations of the learned Judge in paras 11 and 16 of the judgment are reproduced below: