-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.1043 OF 1992 APPEAL NO.1043 OF 1992 APPEAL NO.1043 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. 1. Shri Fakir Yashwant Shelar 2. Bhau Yeshwant Shelar (since deceased through his L.Rs.) 2a.Datta Bhau Shelar 2b.Ambabai Fakir Shelar 2c Smt.Vithabai Ramesh Shelar 2d Anil Ramesh Shelar 2e Sunil Ramesh Shelar 2f Smt.Yeshubai Harishchandra Bhoir 2g. Devendraca Fakir Shelar 2h. Shaila Fakir Shelar 2i Smt.Hirabai Bhau Shelar 2j Mahadev Bhau Shelar 2k Prabhakar Bhau Shelar 2l Indian Dnyaneshwar Patil 2m Surekha Chandrakant Patil 2n Smt.Shanubai Chandrakant Bhagat 2o Smt.Vithabai Narayan Bhagat 2p Smt.Shantabai Krishna Bhoir ...Respondents Ms G.P.Mulekar A.G.P. for State Ms Ameeta Kuttikrishnan i/b Ms S.D.Khot for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, 2a to 2p CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 14, 2008. : MARCH 14, 2008. : MARCH 14, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the Appellant and the Advocate for the Respondents. The challenge by the Appellant-State of Maharashtra in this Appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 17th September 1991 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Raigad-Alibag. An Award has been made in a reference under section of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") 2. The acquisition relates to the land admeasuring 1040 sq. -2- meter on village Wadghar, Taluka Panvel District Raigad which was notified for acquisition on 3rd February 1970 under the said Act for the public purpose of setting up a satellite city of the Navi Mumbai. As the Award made under section 11 of the said Act was not accepted by the Respondents-claimants, the Reference under section 18 of the said Act was made at their instance. The Reference Court fixed the marked value at the rate of Rs.10/- per square meter and granted statutory benefits to the Respondents. 3. The submission of the learned A.G.P. for the Appellant is that the market value awarded is excessive and there was no evidence adduced by the Respondents of comparable sale instances. The learned Advocate for the Respondent supported the impugned Judgment and Award. 4. It is not in dispute that vast tracts of lands at villages Taloja, Pendhar, Kamothe, Wadghar, Ulve etc. in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad were notified for acquisition on 3rd February 1970 for the New Bombay project. 5. It will be necessary to refer to the decision of this Court dated 3rd July 2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indian Standard Metal Company Ltd. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.1, Panvel, District Raigad in First Appeal No.758 of 1988. The Division Bench was dealing with the Appeal arising out of an Award made -3- under section 18 of the said Act relating to lands at village Wadghar totally admeasuring to 2,13,150 sq. meter. The lands subject matter of the said Appeal were also notified for the same public purpose by the same notification dated 3rd February 1970. The Division Bench considered the location of village Wadghar and the situation of the said village as on 3rd February 1970. After considering all the aspects, the Division Bench was of the view that the market value of the acquired lands was Rs.12.50 per square meter. The decision of the Division Bench has attained finality in the sense that the same has not been challenged. 6. The Division Bench has dealt with the case of acquisition of the land situated in the same village notified for acquisition by the same notification for the same project. Therefore, the said decision is certainly relevant for determination of the market value of the acquired land in this case. In the present case, as stated earlier, the market value is fixed only at the rate of Rs.10/- per square meter which is less than the rate fixed by the Division Bench. 7. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned Judgment and Award. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Civil Application No.1217 of 1993 does not survive in view of dismissal of the Appeal. -4- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE