-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.96 OF 1989 APPEAL NO.96 OF 1989 APPEAL NO.96 OF 1989 1. A. Aziz Makbool Tade; . 2. Kasam Mehtab Shaikh; . 3. Hafiz Hasan Tade; . 4. Salim Yacub Tade; . 5. Kaiyyum Yusuf Tade; . 6. Akbar Mehmood Tade; . 7. Kashinath Joma Bahira; ..Appellants V/s. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Raigad. ..Respondent Ms. S.P. Manchekar for the appellant . None for the respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 27TH JUNE, 2008 : 27TH JUNE, 2008 : 27TH JUNE, 2008 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT :- JUDGMENT :- JUDGMENT :- . The appellants-original claimants have challenged the impugned judgment dated 31st March, 1987 whereby an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for increase in the amount of compensation. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad by the impugned judgement awarded the enhanced compensation @ Rs.15/- instead of Rs.25/- as claimed. 2. In the First Appeal 1330 of 1993, this Court after considering the material placed on record in the Land Acquisition matter No.47 of 1985 for New Bombay project the compensation has granted at Rs.15/- per square meter. Based upon the other land acquisition related the First Appeal No. 1123 of 2005 is referred -2- in this case and rejected the claim @ Rs.15 as mentioned. Apart from this, the learned Judge has also considered that the land in dispute is having potentiality and, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has been enhanced. The averments made in the Appeal that the Panvel is at very short distance from Bombay and was i.e. situated at Panvel that itself cannot be a reason to interfere in the impugned Judgment based upon the similarity situated lands and the decision given by the Land Acquisition Officer, CIDCO referred in the first appeal. The learned Judge by giving reasons considered the case and granted compensation at the rate of 15 per Sq.meter. It is a reasonable compensation in the fact and circumstances of the case. 3. Therefore, there is no material on record to prove that the sufficient case is made out to enhance the amount of compensation @Rs.25 in the present case. 4. In view of this appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) V. MOHTA,J.) V. MOHTA,J.)