1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION First Appeal No. 134 of 2002 . The State of Maharashtra, (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.14, Pune) .. Appellant (Original Opponent) v/s. Tropicana Properties Ltd., Bombay 400 052 Registered Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act ..Respondents (Original Claimant) Mrs.G.P.Mulekar, AGP for the Appellant. None for the Respondents CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 7th January, 2010 JUDGMENT (PER R.Y.GANOO, J.) : 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18th November, 2000 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, (hereafter referred to as the learned trial Judge) in Land Reference No.34 of 1995, the State of Maharashtra, through the Special Land Acquisition 2 Officer No.14, Pune has filed this first appeal. 2. Few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: The Special Land Acquisition Officer by notification No.NACPLAQ/RR/2 dated 20th February, 1993 acquired the land owned by the respondents admeasuring 1 Hectare 12 R. out of Survey No.56 situated at Tungarli, Taluka Maval, District Pune for bypass National Highway No.4 (hereafter referred to as the said land). The award was declared on 16th March.1995. Notice under Section 12(2) was served on 24th March, 1995. Possession was taken on 11th April, 1995. This claim was filed on 5th May, 1995. Hence the filing of the claim before the learned trial Judge was within the limitation and to that extent the claim was maintainable before the learned trial Judge. 3. Before the learned trial Judge, on behalf of the respondents evidence was given by Mr. Ajay Manohar Phansalkar, P.W.1. who happened to be in the service of the respondents as a Civil Engineer. 4. It is to be noted that on behalf of the respondents no sale instances were placed before the court. 3 5. The land bearing survey nos.57 and 67 are at a distance of 500 meters from the said land and the said Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs. 195/- per sq. meter for Survey No.57 and Rs.266/- per sq. meter for survey No.67. The respondents had claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. meter, as according to the respondents the grant of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.68/- per meter was inadequate. 6. We have heard learned Advocate Mrs.Mulekar appearing for the State of Maharashtra i.e. the appellants. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. It is to be noted that the respondents have not challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 18th November, 2000 passed by the learned trial Judge, thereby granting compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. meter. Hence this Court will have to decide whether the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. meter is proper. 7. We have perused the evidence of Phansalkar, P.W.1. From the evidence it is noted that the said land falls within the limits of Lonavala Municipal Council and was within the residential zone. It is also seen that 4 the layout was sanctioned by Lonavala Municipal Corporation on 19.3.1996 and is at Exhibit 13/2. It is also see that the suggestion given in the cross examination that the said land had no direct access to road is denied. 8. It is to be noted that in the course of cross examination of Phansalkar, P.W.1 there is a reference to the Government Ready Reckoner of 1993, concerning the land within the local limits of Lonavala Municipal Council and in particular the said land, where the market price is fixed at Rs.154/- per sq. meter. 9. Learned Advocate Mrs. Mulekar had submitted that merely because the land bearing Survey Nos.57 and 67 were granted compensation at the rate of Rs.195/- per sq. meter and Rs.266/- per sq. meter respectively, it was not open for the learned trial Judge to grant compensation more than what was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, particularly because the respondents have not placed before the court any material to show that the particulars of the said land substantially tally with Survey Nos.57 and 67. 10. It was also argued by learned Advocate Mrs. Mulekar that the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner is not to be taken for the purpose of 5 arriving at the valuation of the land in view of the circulars issued by the State of Maharashtra under Section 47A of the Stamp Act. 11. According to her, the price mentioned in the ready reckoner is of no assistance whatsoever in arriving at the rate at which the compensation should be granted. 12. Learned Advocate Mrs. Mulekar had taken us through the judgment and had submitted that the compensation granted at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. meter is on higher side and the compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was proper. 13. We have considered the impugned judgment as well as the evidence and documents produced on record. In para 11 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Judge has observed that the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner would be of no assistance, and to that extent it may not be open to rely upon the rate mentioned in the reckoner. Considering the reasons mentioned in para 11 it is clear that the learned trial judge was not influenced by the rate mentioned in the ready reckoner namely Rs.154/- per sq. meter. 6 14. The learned trial judge has considered the location of the land i.e. the said land falls within the local limits of Municipal Council of Lonavala. He has observed that Lonavala is hill station and has also considered the building potential of the land. It is not in dispute that the layout was sanctioned in regard to the said land is not in dispute. The learned Judge has considered all the above aspects for the purpose of fixing the rate in question. The learned Judge has fixed the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. meter and has treated the said rate as reasonable market price for the land in question. 15. After having considered the impugned judgment and the relevant points on the basis of which the compensation has been fixed at Rs.100/- per sq. meter, it cannot be termed as an unreasonable grant. In our view, the compensation granted at the rate of Rs.68/- per sq. meter was too low and the Special Land Acquisition Officer failed to consider the various aspects which were rightly considered by the learned trial Judge while fixing the rate at which the compensation has been awarded to the respondents. 16. We are of the considered view that the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. meter is reasonable and no interference is required 7 in the impugned judgment. 17. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid we are inclined to dismiss the appeal and accordingly the appeal is dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs. 18. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No.627 of 2002 does not survive and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J] [D.B.BHOSALE, J.]