Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Mr.Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary submitted that annexure `A' to the opinion, if scrutinized properly, it would be difficult to envisage that the price would be Rs.225/- per sq.mtr. or even as demanded by the claimants at Rs.150/- per sq.mtr. Mr. Nanavati attacked the instances appearing at sr.no.10 in annexure `B' on the ground that the correct market value has not been indicated. For the said purpose, evidence of Dr.Rohit Desai was read and re-read. He has come out with the case that out of survey no.1047, plot no. 16 admeasuring 154.70 sq.mtr. was transferred on 8.5.84 by a registered Sale Deed. There is a document in this behalf at exh. 55 but it was submitted by Mr.Nanavati, learned counsel for the beneficiary that if the registered sale deed is perused, it is clear that over and above plot no. 16, common plot was also transferred. Plot no. 16 was admeasuring 154.70 sq.mtr. and common plot was admeasuring 344.38 sq.mtr. The amount of consideration is indicated in the document itself i.e. Rs.11,000/- for plot no. 16 and Rs.21,000/for common plot. Thus, there is transfer of property admeasuring about 499.08 sq.mtr. and not 154.79 sq.mtr. as referred in the annexure. The learned counsel attacked the evidence of expert that though the documents were there on the record, the attention of the expert was not drawn and therefore it would have been proper if the explanation would have been called for from the witness. It is also required to be noted that the transaction took place on 8.5.88 with regard to the plot admeasuring 154.79 (on 10.9.88 by registered sale deed). The similar plot was transferred on consideration of Rs.10,000/- in favour of one Chandrikaben by Vinubhai while the slightly bigger plot on the same date was transferred in favour of Parshottambhai on consideration of Rs.32,000/- by Vinubhai. This itself raises a doubt about the transaction being genuine. It is difficult to believe that for a difference of 45 sq.mtr. one would be prompted to pay Rs.22,000/-. That apart, even as per say of the beneficiary for 154.79 sq.mtr. the amount of consideration was Rs.11,000/- only as reflected in document at exh. 55. If that is taken into consideration, then there is no major difference. According to Mr.Nanavati if this sale deed is taken into consideration the amount would be Rs.60/- per sq.mtr. He submitted that there is another sale instance at sr.no. 3 for the plot of land admeasuring 153.20 sq.mtr. which was transferred @ 110.96 per sq.mtr. He submitted that this area is not nearby the lands in question and therefore it should not be taken into consideration. In sum and substance his contention was that if annexure `B' is taken into consideration, the price varies from Rs.62.11/- to Rs.98.15/- per sq.mtr. The notification was issued on 13.9.84. Therefore, the court will have to take into consideration these documents. Annexure `C' to the document has been also perused by us. There are several instances out of which only one instance is of May, 1984. One instance is of 25.1.85 and the other is of 29.8.85. There are other instances of 1986,1987 and 1988. Mr.Nanavati, learned counsel contended that in both the annexures, distance is also indicated from the lands acquired and according to his submission, there are only 3 plots appearing at annexure `C' at sr.no.5,6 & 8 which can be said to be nearer to the plot while others are at a distance of about 400 mtrs.to 550 mtrs. The transaction which took place can be said to be in the proximity of the time i.e. 1986.

13. The learned counsel Mr.Nanavati submitted that the transaction referred by the expert in his opinion for 2 plots of revenue survey no. 1046/3 one admeasuring 116.02 sq.mtr. of block no. A-9, and, another admeasuring 116 sq.mtr. of plot no. 1/10 has been wrongly taken into consideration by the expert. The evidence of expert was also attacked on the ground that irrelevant material has been taken into consideration by him and therefore in his submission the court will have to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the material placed on the record independently without being influenced by the assessment made by the expert. In the aforesaid 2 plots, the expert himself has made comments. One transaction took place on 29.8.85 for area admeasuring 116.02 sq.mtr. for Rs.20,000/- for plot no. 1/10, the other transaction took place on 8.10.86. For both the plots there was a common seller and there is vast difference in the value as pointed out by the valuer himself. One plot in the year 1986 was transferred Rs.172/- per sq.mtr. while the other plot was transferred in 1985 on consideration @ Rs.215.48/- per sq.mtr. The valuer has pointed out that the above 2 sales are of the properties which are located side by side. The seller is the same, area is almost the same but the second sale after one year shows less value. He has pointed out that "this supports the conclusion that the value as per sale instance are not as per prevailing market and tailored as per requirement." Thus, the expert has just indicated these instances with a view to point out that the people while transferring the property are not indicating the correct market price.