{"id":38884,"date":"2011-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-04T04:21:43","modified_gmt":"2018-04-03T22:51:43","slug":"masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n
                                            1                              fa286.94\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n                 AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n                       FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 1994\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n    1         Masaji s\/o Gyanoji Thoke,\n              aged 49 years,occ. Agriculture,\n              r\/o Borja, Ta. Kalamnuri,\n              District Parbhani                                               ...Appellant       \n\n\n\n\n                                           \n                                                                          [Original Claimant]\n                       \n              VERSUS\n\n    1         The State of Maharashtra,\n                      \n              through Collector, Parbhani,\n\n    2         Special Land Acquisition\n              Officer, Kalamnuri,\n      \n\n\n              District  Parbhani                                           ...Respondents\n                                                                   [Original Respondents]\n   \n\n\n\n                                             .....\n\n\n\n\n\n    Shri S.K.Adkine, advocate  for the appellant\n    Shri B.J.Sonawane, A.G.P.  for respondent nos. 1 and 2\n                                             .....\n\n\n                             CORAM  :     SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,  J.\n<\/pre>\n
                             DATE OF RESERVING
\n                             THE JUDGMENT                :  17.2.2011
\n                             DATE OF PRONOUNCING
\n                             THE JUDGMENT                :  07.3.2011<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2                           fa286.94<\/p>\n
    J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T    :  –\n<\/p>\n
    1            This   First   Appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and <\/p>\n
    award,   dated   17.11.1990,     rendered   by   the   learned   Civil   Judge, <\/p>\n
    Senior   Division,   Hingoli,   in   Land   Acquisition   Reference   No.   85   of <\/p>\n
    1987 challenging the said award.\n<\/p>\n
    2            The factual matrix of the matter is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                 The   appellant   (original   claimant)   owned   and   possessed <\/p>\n
    House No. 133  of village Borja, Taluka Kalamnuri, District Parbhani, <\/p>\n
    which   was   acquired   by   respondent   no.1   State   of   Maharashtra   for <\/p>\n
    Upper Penganga Irrigation Project in the year 1990.   The acquired <\/p>\n
    area was 30.10 Sq. Mtrs. i.e. 23.50 Sq. Mtrs. built up area and 6.60 <\/p>\n
    Sq. Mtrs. was open space.\n<\/p>\n
    3            The   appellant   claimed   the   compensation   to   the   tune   of <\/p>\n
    Rs.90\/-   per   sq.   ft.;   whereas   respondent   no.2   the   Special   Land <\/p>\n
    Acquisition Officer awarded total compensation of Rs.2,178\/- i.e. Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    5\/-   to   Rs.6\/-   per   sq.   ft.     The   Special   Land   Acquisition   Officer, <\/p>\n
    Kalamnuri,   District   Parbhani,   after   hearing   the   appellant\/petitioner <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                           3                           fa286.94<\/p>\n
    and the acquiring body passed the award under Section 11 of the <\/p>\n
    Land Acquisition Act.   Hence, being aggrieved by the said award, <\/p>\n
    passed   by   the   Special   Land   Acquisition   Officer,   the   appellant <\/p>\n
    preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, <\/p>\n
    claiming enhanced compensation of Rs. 18,612\/-.\n<\/p>\n
    4           Accordingly, the said Reference Petition was forwarded to <\/p>\n
    the   court   of   learned   Civil   Judge,   Senior   Division,   Parbhani,   and <\/p>\n
    consequently, it was transferred to the learned Civil Judge, Senior <\/p>\n
    Division, Hingoli. The respondents resisted the Reference Petition of <\/p>\n
    the appellant\/petitioner by filing say.\n<\/p>\n
    5           The appellant\/petitioner examined himself, namely Masaji <\/p>\n
    Gyanoji Thoke as PW1, as well as examined the expert witness i.e. <\/p>\n
    the   Architect,   namely   Arvind   Trimbak   Paradkar   as   PW2   to <\/p>\n
    substantiate   his   contentions;   whereas   the   respondents   did   not <\/p>\n
    examine any witness.\n<\/p>\n
    6           Accordingly,   after   considering   the   rival   pleadings   and <\/p>\n
    assessing the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge, Senior <\/p>\n
    Division, Hingoli i.e. the Reference Court allowed the said Reference <\/p>\n
    Petition   partly   with   proportionate   costs   and   directed   that   the <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4                            fa286.94<\/p>\n
    petitioner is entitled to get difference of compensation of Rs.3,841\/-\n<\/p>\n
    only and the said additional amount of compensation shall carry the <\/p>\n
    interest   at   the   rate   of   12   per   cent   per   annum   from   the   date   of <\/p>\n
    notification     to   the   passing   of   the   award   or   the   date   of   taking <\/p>\n
    possession,   whichever   is   earlier,   as   well   as   directed   that     the <\/p>\n
    petitioner is also entitled to receive solatium at the rate of 30 per cent <\/p>\n
    on   the   enhanced   compensation,   and   awarded   the   interest   on   the <\/p>\n
    enhanced compensation and solatium in one year from the date of <\/p>\n
    taking possession at the rate of 9% per annum and thereafter at the <\/p>\n
    rate   of   15%   per   annum   till   the   realisation   of   entire   amount.   The <\/p>\n
    respondent\/State was directed to deposit the above amount within <\/p>\n
    two months from the date of the said order, by judgment and award, <\/p>\n
    dated 17.11.1990, rendered in Land Acquisition Reference No. 85 of <\/p>\n
    1987.\n<\/p>\n
    7            Being   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   by   the   said   judgment <\/p>\n
    and award, passed by the Reference Court, the appellant\/petitioner <\/p>\n
    has   preferred   the   present   First   Appeal,   contending   that   the <\/p>\n
    Reference Court should have   allowed the claim of the appellant to <\/p>\n
    the   extent   claimed   by   the   appellant   and   the   Reference   Court <\/p>\n
    awarded too meagre amount of compensation i.e.  Rs. 200\/- per Sq.\n<\/p>\n
    Mtrs. and also contending that the Reference Court failed to consider <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                            5                           fa286.94<\/p>\n
    the house construction which was ‘chirebandi’  and there was bricks <\/p>\n
    and cement plaster all around the premises and the construction was <\/p>\n
    made recently   i.e. within five years, and also the Reference Court <\/p>\n
    failed   to   consider   that   the   appellant   was   required   to   change   his <\/p>\n
    residence to another village due to acquisition of his house, which <\/p>\n
    resulted in incurring expenditure  therefor, as well as contending that <\/p>\n
    the   Reference   Court   failed   to   consider   the   material   facts,   like <\/p>\n
    prevailing market price and cost of the construction of the house and <\/p>\n
    the Reference Court ought to have held that the enhancement of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    18,612\/- claimed by the appellant was just and proper.  Accordingly, <\/p>\n
    the   appellant   submits   that   although   in   the   Land   Reference, <\/p>\n
    enhancement   of   compensation   was   claimed   at   Rs.18,612\/-;     the <\/p>\n
    Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli allowed the claim to the extent of <\/p>\n
    Rs.  3,841\/-   only,  and  therefore,   the  present  appellant  claimed  the <\/p>\n
    restricted   enhancement   in   compensation   of   Rs.14,680\/-.   only   and <\/p>\n
    paid the court fee thereon.\n<\/p>\n
    8            Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the date <\/p>\n
    of   notification   under   Section   4   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act   is <\/p>\n
    4.4.1980.   and   the   award   was   passed   by   respondent   no.   2   the <\/p>\n
    Special Land Acquisition Officer on 28.10.1980 and awarded amount <\/p>\n
    of Rs.2,178\/- towards the compensation for the said acquired house, <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6                           fa286.94<\/p>\n
    which admeasured 30.10 Sq. Mtrs. i.e. 23.50 Sq. Mtrs. built up area <\/p>\n
    and 6.60 Sq. Mtrs. open space.   Learned counsel for the appellant <\/p>\n
    argued   that   the   appellant\/petitioner   claimed   Rs.90\/-   per   sq.   ft.\n<\/p>\n
    compensation before respondent no.2, but respondent no.2 i.e. the <\/p>\n
    Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded total amount of Rs.2,178\/-\n<\/p>\n
    i.e. around Rs. 5\/- to Rs. 6\/- per sq. ft.\n<\/p>\n
    9<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Being   dissatisfied   with   the   said   compensation,   the <\/p>\n
    appellant\/petitioner   preferred   the   Reference   before   the   Reference <\/p>\n
    Court   claiming   compensation   of   Rs.18,612\/-,   but   the   Reference <\/p>\n
    Court awarded enhancement of Rs.3,841\/- i.e. about Rs.200\/- per <\/p>\n
    Sq. Mtrs. i.e.   around Rs.20\/- per sq. ft., and accordingly, granted <\/p>\n
    very meagre amount towards enhancement of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    10           Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   also   argued   that   the <\/p>\n
    appellant\/petitioner examined himself as PW1 and contended that he <\/p>\n
    accepted   the   amount   of   Rs.2,100\/-   awarded   by   respondent   no.2 <\/p>\n
    under   protest,   since   the   said   amount   was   inadequate,   but   the <\/p>\n
    appellant\/petitioner   actually   spent   Rs.18,000\/-   to   Rs.   20,000\/-   for <\/p>\n
    construction   of   the   said   house   about   5   to   6   years   back   from   its <\/p>\n
    acquisition, which was constructed with bricks and cement and same <\/p>\n
    was covered by roof of ‘Malwad’ made up of Teak wood, and the said <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7                           fa286.94<\/p>\n
    house was  having two doors and  two windows, each made up  of <\/p>\n
    Teak wood. He also stated that he spent Rs. 3,000\/- to Rs. 4,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
    towards   migration   of   his   house,   and   therefore,   he   claimed <\/p>\n
    compensation of Rs.15,000\/- to Rs.20,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
    11           Learned counsel for the appellant also canvassed that the <\/p>\n
    appellant examined expert witness i.e. the architect Arvind Trimbak <\/p>\n
    Paradkar, who produced the valuation report at Exh. 33 and map of <\/p>\n
    the   house   Exh.   34,   and   the   said   valuation   report   discloses     the <\/p>\n
    valuation of the said house at Rs.20,737\/- which was not considered <\/p>\n
    by the Reference Court in proper perspective, and merely awarded <\/p>\n
    Rs.200\/- per Sq. Mtrs. for the built up area and the open space and <\/p>\n
    average   market   value,   which   has   no   basis   and   foundation.\n<\/p>\n
    Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the present <\/p>\n
    appeal be allowed and the appellant be awarded further   enhanced <\/p>\n
    compensation to the tune of Rs.14,680\/- towards his acquired house.\n<\/p>\n
    12           To   substantiate   the   case   of   the  appellant\/petitioner,   the <\/p>\n
    learned  counsel   for  the  appellant  relied  upon  the   judgment   of  the <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble supreme Court in the   case of  Special Land Acquisition <\/p>\n
    Officer   vs   Chandramma   (deceased   by   L.Rs.),   reported   at  2009 <\/p>\n
    AIR  SCW 2909, and submitted that the matter may  be remanded <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8                            fa286.94<\/p>\n
    back to the Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
    13           Learned   Assistant   Government   Pleader   opposed   the <\/p>\n
    present Appeal and canvassed that the appellant has not produced <\/p>\n
    any comparable sale instance on record to prove and establish his <\/p>\n
    claim of enhanced compensation, but the appellant relied upon the <\/p>\n
    evidence   of   expert   witness     PW2  Arvind   Trimbak   Paradkar.     It   is <\/p>\n
    submitted by learned A.G.P. that the appellant PW1 has admitted in <\/p>\n
    his cross-examination that he has neither produced the accounts for <\/p>\n
    the expenses of his house nor produced the documentary evidence <\/p>\n
    to show the expenses of migration, and therefore, contended that his <\/p>\n
    testimony   is   not   reliable.     As   regards   the   expert   evidence   of   the <\/p>\n
    architect PW2 Arvind Paradkar, it is submitted by learned A.G.P. that <\/p>\n
    the said expert witness neither narrated the contents of valuation nor <\/p>\n
    stated   the   test   which   he   applied   for   arriving   at   the   conclusion   in <\/p>\n
    respect of the valuation of the house in question.   According to the <\/p>\n
    learned A.G.P. the said expert witness did not substantiate each and <\/p>\n
    every aspect of the valuation report Exh.33.  Further it is argued by <\/p>\n
    the learned A.G.P. that mere stating that the contents of the said <\/p>\n
    report bear his signature and same are correct, will not suffice for the <\/p>\n
    proof of contents thereof, since it is the expert’s evidence. It is further <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   the   said   expert   witness     even   did   not   produce   the <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                            9                           fa286.94<\/p>\n
    documentary   evidence   to   show   his   expertise,   as   well   as   failed   to <\/p>\n
    produce the District Scheduled Rates and market value prevailing at <\/p>\n
    the relevant time.  It is further canvassed by the learned A.G.P. That <\/p>\n
    the area of the house mentioned in the valuation report Exh. 33 and <\/p>\n
    the map Exh. 34 differ from each other, since as per valuation report <\/p>\n
    Exh.   33   the   area   is   30.10   Sq.   Mtrs.,   whereas   the   map   Exh.   34 <\/p>\n
    discloses the area as 42.90 Sq. Mtrs.   Hence, it   is canvassed by <\/p>\n
    learned A.G.P. That the expert’s evidence i.e. PW2 Arvind Paradkar <\/p>\n
    as well as Exh. 33 valuation report and the map Exh.34 are not the <\/p>\n
    reliable   pieces   of   evidence.     Accordingly,   the   learned   A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
    Submitted that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court in <\/p>\n
    the compensation is proper and adequate, considering the prevailing <\/p>\n
    market value of the acquired house and no enhancement therein is <\/p>\n
    warranted, and consequently,   urged that the present appeal bears <\/p>\n
    no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and therefore, same <\/p>\n
    be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    14           I have perused the oral as well as documentary evidence <\/p>\n
    adduced   and   produced   by   the   parties   on   record,   as   well   as <\/p>\n
    considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
    respective parties anxiously and also considered the ratio laid down <\/p>\n
    in the judicial pronouncement cited by the learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                              10                           fa286.94<\/p>\n
    appellant carefully, and at the out set, it is apparently clear that the <\/p>\n
    oral evidence adduced by the appellant i.e. the testimony of PW1 <\/p>\n
    Masaji Gyanoji Thoke has not been substantiated by documentary <\/p>\n
    evidence.  It is significant to note that although PW2 Masaji stated in <\/p>\n
    his deposition that he actually spent Rs.18,000\/- to Rs. 20,000\/- for <\/p>\n
    construction of the house in question and he constructed the said <\/p>\n
    house   before   5   to   6   years   of   its   acquisition   and   said   house   was <\/p>\n
    constructed   with bricks and cement and the same was covered by <\/p>\n
    roof  of  ‘Malwad’  made   up  of  Teak   wood  and  the  said  house  was <\/p>\n
    having 2 doors and 2 windows  each made up of Teak wood, but the <\/p>\n
    appellant failed to substantiate the said contentions by documentary <\/p>\n
    evidence.   Pertinently, the appellant has not produced the building <\/p>\n
    permission and\/or completion certification of the said house, which <\/p>\n
    could   have   thrown   light   on   the   said   contentions   of   the   appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    Moreover, the appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that <\/p>\n
    he has not produced the accounts for the expenses of his house, as <\/p>\n
    well   as   he   has     further     admitted     that   he   has   not   produced   the <\/p>\n
    documentary   evidence   to   show   the   expenses   of   his   migration.\n<\/p>\n
    Hence, suggestion was given to him that he never spent Rs.3,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
    to Rs.4,000\/- on his migration, as well as it   was suggested to him <\/p>\n
    that he never spent Rs.18,000\/- to Rs. 20,000\/- for construction of his <\/p>\n
    house, but same were denied by him.  Accordingly, the testimony of <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                        11                         fa286.94<\/p>\n
    PW1 does not take the appellant’s case further ahead in constructive <\/p>\n
    manner towards the enhancement of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
    15         That takes me to the testimony of the appellant’s expert <\/p>\n
    witness PW2 Arvind Paradkar, who stated that  he is a Government <\/p>\n
    recognized architect and performed valuation work of Government, <\/p>\n
    Semi-Government,   etc.   Organizations   and   handled   about   1500 <\/p>\n
    cases in the capacity of valuer and architect, and he also stated that <\/p>\n
    he personally visited the house   of the appellant and prepared the <\/p>\n
    plan   of valuation and calculated the   cost of the existing house in <\/p>\n
    question and further stated that the valuation shown in the valuation <\/p>\n
    report prepared by him is based on District Scheduled Rates of the <\/p>\n
    Government  at the relevant time.  He also stated that the valuation <\/p>\n
    report   and the map bear his signature and he identified the same <\/p>\n
    and admitted that the contents thereof are correct, and accordingly, <\/p>\n
    same were  exhibited  as  Exhs.  33  and 34  respectively.   However, <\/p>\n
    during cross-examination he admitted that he has not produced the <\/p>\n
    documentary   evidence   to   show   his   expertise,   as   well   as   not <\/p>\n
    produced the District Scheduled Rates and the market value at the <\/p>\n
    relevant time, and hence,  suggestion was given to PW1  Masaji and <\/p>\n
    PW2 Arvind Paradkar that  PW2 Arvind Paradkar  never visited the <\/p>\n
    house acquired, but same were denied by both of them.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              12                           fa286.94\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n    16           Considering   the   valuation   report   Exh.   33,   map   Exh.   34 \n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n<\/pre>\n
    and the testimony of PW2 expert witness architect Arvind Paradkar, <\/p>\n
    it is material to note that PW2 Arvind Paradkar   has not stated the <\/p>\n
    details   regarding   his   visit   to   the   acquired   house   in   question   and <\/p>\n
    regarding the measurement of the said house, as also as regards the <\/p>\n
    built   up   area   and   open   space   thereof,   as   well   as   the   basis   and <\/p>\n
    foundation   for   calculation   of   its   valuation.     Moreover,   he   has   no <\/p>\n
    where   stated   in   his   deposition   that   what   test   he   had   applied     for <\/p>\n
    arriving   at   the   conclusion     of   rates   of   construction   stated   in   his <\/p>\n
    valuation   report,   as   well   as   he   has   not   stated   the   methods   and <\/p>\n
    parameters,   which   he   applied   for   calculation   of   valuation   of   the <\/p>\n
    acquired   house   in   question   headwise,   and   also   he   has   nowhere <\/p>\n
    stated   in   what   manner   and   how   he   arrived   at   the   rates   of <\/p>\n
    construction   as   stated   in   the   valuation   report,   and   therefore,   it   is <\/p>\n
    amply clear  that PW2 Architect Arvind Paradkar has not proved the <\/p>\n
    very   contents of the said valuation report and mere exhibiting the <\/p>\n
    said report stating  that the valuation report bears his signature and <\/p>\n
    its   contents   are   correct,   will   not   suffice   the   purpose,   since   the <\/p>\n
    valuation report and the testimony of PW2 Arvind Paradkar are the <\/p>\n
    expert’s evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             13                          fa286.94\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n    17           Coming to the map Exh.34, which has been prepared by \n\n<\/pre>\n
    PW2 Architect Arvind Trimbak Paradkar, since it bears his signature, <\/p>\n
    admittedly   the   area   of   the   acquired   house   is   30.10   Sq.   Mtrs.;\n<\/p>\n
    whereas   the   area   stated   in   the   said   map   Exh.   34   discloses   the <\/p>\n
    measurement of the house as 42.90 Sq. Mtrs., and therefore, there is <\/p>\n
    variance in the area of the acquired house as stated in the award <\/p>\n
    and the said map Exh.  34.     Moreover, the architect PW2 Arvind <\/p>\n
    Paradkar has no where stated in his deposition the date on which he <\/p>\n
    visited the acquired house and when and how he measured the said <\/p>\n
    house, as  well  as  the manner  of preparing the said map and the <\/p>\n
    method of preparation of area statement thereof, and the basis of <\/p>\n
    scale thereof is not mentioned in the said map and even the said <\/p>\n
    map   discloses   the   stamp   as   Vastukala,   Architect     and   Engineer, <\/p>\n
    Parbhani, and signed as PW2 Arvind Trimbak Paradkar as Architect, <\/p>\n
    but   neither   the   said   map   Exh.   34   or   deposition   of   PW2   Architect <\/p>\n
    Arvind Trimbak Paradkar discloses whether PW2 Arvind Paradkar is <\/p>\n
    proprietor or partner thereof, and all these shortcomings and lacunae <\/p>\n
    create suspicion about the said map Exh. 34, and  further even the <\/p>\n
    area statement of the said map does not disclose the built up area <\/p>\n
    and open space of the said house.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n    18           Thus,   it   is   amply   clear   from   the   testimony   of   PW2 \n\n\n\n\n                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>\n                                          14                          fa286.94\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n<\/pre>\n
    Architect   Arvind   Paradkar,   an   expert   witness,   that   he   has   not <\/p>\n
    narrated the contents of valuation report Exh. 33 and further the area <\/p>\n
    statement in the map Exh. 34 of the acquired house differ from the <\/p>\n
    area of the acquired house given in the award and even PW2 Arvind <\/p>\n
    Paradkar   admitted   that   he   has   neither   produced   the   documentary <\/p>\n
    evidence to show his expertise nor produced the District Scheduled <\/p>\n
    Rates and market value at the relevant time, and therefore, the said <\/p>\n
    expert   evidence   i.e.   the   testimony   of   PW2   Arvind   Paradkar   and <\/p>\n
    valuation report Exh. 33 as well as map Exh. 34 come under the <\/p>\n
    doldrums   and   do   not   take   the   appellant’s   case   any   further   in <\/p>\n
    constructive manner to consider the same for enhancement in the <\/p>\n
    compensation as claimed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    19          In my opinion, the judgment cited by the learned counsel <\/p>\n
    for   the   appellant   in   the   case   of  Chandramma  (supra)   is   not <\/p>\n
    applicable to the present appeal as the facts  and circumstances of <\/p>\n
    the said case differ from the facts and circumstances  in the present <\/p>\n
    appeal, and as such, this is not the matter for remand.\n<\/p>\n
    20          In   the   circumstances,   the   view   adopted   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
    Reference Court, after assessing and analysing the evidence, is a <\/p>\n
    possible view and the reasoning given therefor cannot be faulted with <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                             15                           fa286.94<\/p>\n
    and   same   also   does   not   appear   to   be   perverse,   and   hence,   no <\/p>\n
    interference therein is  called for in the appellate jurisdiction in the <\/p>\n
    present First Appeal.   Besides that, even after   reappreciating the <\/p>\n
    evidence on record,   I am of the view that this is not a fit case to <\/p>\n
    interfere   in   the   finding   given   by   the   Reference   Court,   which <\/p>\n
    apparently has given the proper and adequate enhancement in the <\/p>\n
    compensation   to   the   appellant   in   accordance   with   the   prevailing <\/p>\n
    market   value   at   the   relevant   time,   and   therefore,   present   appeal <\/p>\n
    lacks merits, and hence, same deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    21           In   the   result,   the   present   appeal,   which   is   sans   merits, <\/p>\n
    stands   dismissed.     No   costs.     R.   and   P.   be   sent   back   to   the <\/p>\n
    concerned Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) <\/p>\n
    dbm\/fa286.94<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:02:53 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 Bench: Shrihari P. Davare 1 fa286.94 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 1994 1 Masaji s\/o Gyanoji Thoke, aged 49 years,occ. Agriculture, r\/o Borja, Ta. Kalamnuri, District Parbhani …Appellant [Original Claimant] VERSUS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMasaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-03T22:51:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T22:51:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2908,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-03T22:51:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-03T22:51:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T22:51:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011"},"wordCount":2908,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011","name":"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-03T22:51:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masaji-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-7-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Masaji vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38884","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}