: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.465 OF 1991 alongwith CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.31256 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s. Shri Arjun Raghunath Kadam since deceased, through his LRs 1. Shakuntala Arjunrao Kadam. 2. Prakash Arjunrao Kadam 3. Nitin Arjunrao Kadam 4. Anil Arjunrao Kadam all adults, residing at 8/252, 3 rd floor, Trimurti society, Pokharan Road No.1, Thane  400 606 5.Mrs. Darshana Dadurao Shinde adult, residing at Krishna Waghe Chawl, Anand Park, Thane .. Respondents ..... Mrs. Geeta P. Mulekar, AGP for the appellant Mr. R.S. Datar for the respondents ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: : 2 : 1. Land bearing survey No.247, H-3 admeasuring 1300 sq.meter situate at Village Pendhar, Tal, Panvel, Dist. Raigad came to be acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.6, Panvel, Dist. Raigad in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as teh said Act) as the land was required for New Bombay project. The date of notification was 3 rd February, 1970 the date of the award was 31 st January, 1986 and the possession was taken over on 31 st January, 1985. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @Rs.1.50 per sq.meter and total amount of compensation granted was Rs.6,277.05. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the land owner by name Arjun filed reference under Section 18 of the said Act in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Raigad at Alibag (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Judge). The learned trial Judge by his judgment and decree dated 28 th February, 1990 granted the reference and awarded the compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.mtr. in regard to the suit land and also granted other benefits in the : 3 : nature of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. This judgment and decree dated 28 th February, 1990 has been challenged in this first appeal. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, Arjun expired and his heirs have been brought on record as respondents who are five in number. Said Arjun, the original respondent had filed his cross objections. They were also required to be heard alongwith the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra, which I have done. In the cross objection, the respondent Arjun had demanded Rs.40/- per sq.meter by way of compensation, though in the claim the amount demanded was less. 3. With the assistance of learned advocates on both the sides, I have perused the record and it is seen that one Mr. Jeevan Kulkarni, a person dealing in land valuation came to be examined by the respondent and he gave evidence as regards the description of the suit land with reference to Bombay  Pune highway and in his evidence he has clearly stated that the suit : 4 : land was at the distance of 1600 meters from Mumbai  Pune highway. Arjun, the respondent has also given evidence in support of his case and that is how the evidence in the nature of oral evidence came to be placed before the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge has accepted the evidence given by Jeevan Kulkarni PW-1 whereby the said Jeevan had stated that land is about 1600 meters away from Bombay  Pune highway. 4. As the first appeal was taken up for hearing, it was brought to my notice that the division bench of this Court had an occasion to decide certain number of first appeals concerning the land acquisition in or about vicinity of Panvel and other areas. The said first appeals came to be decided in terms of order passed on 16 th March, 2000. First Appeal No.58 of 1992 concerned the land situate at Pendhar. My attention was drawn to the text of this judgment and it was pointed out that in so far as land which was about 480 meters from Bombay  Pune highway, compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.meter was awarded. : 5 : 5. By now, it is well settle that distance between the land in question and a highway is a point which is required to be considered for the purposes of grant of compensation. If this is so, apart from the points which have been considered by the learned trial Judge for the purposes of grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.meter, the observations of the division bench of this Court granting compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.meter in regard to a land situate at a distance of 480 meters from Bombay  Pune highway will have to be accepted and proper weightage will have to be given to it for the purposes of deciding this first appeal as well as the cross objections. Once it is accepted that in regard to land at village Pendhar, Rs.20/- per sq.meter is to be granted if the land is about 480 meters away from Bombay  Pune highway the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.meter in regard to the suit land which is at a distance of 1600 meters cannot be considered as exorbitant. In my view, for these reasons the grant at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.meter will have to considered as proper and therefore the amount of compensation granted by the learned trial : 6 : Judge in terms of impugned judgment and decree dated 28 th February, 1990 will have to be considered as proper and that order will have to be confirmed. 6. In so far as the cross objections are concerned, if the original respondent Arjun wanted to claim Rs. 40/- per sq.meter in regard to the suit land, it was necessary for him to bring adequate evidence before the Court in support of such claim and it must be mentioned that no proper material is placed to accept the stand as regards the grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.meter. Even otherwise, once the division bench of this Court in so far as first appeal No.58 of 1992 is to be treated as a base for the purposes of grant of compensation in regard to lands situate at village Pendhar, the claim of the Arjun at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.meter cannot be granted. For these reasons, cross objections filed by the respondent will have to be rejected. 7. Apart from the aforesaid point, one point was raised by learned advocate Mrs. Mulekar, appearing on behalf of the State that the reference under Section : 7 : 18 of the said Act has been filed beyond the period of limitation as understood under Section 18 of said Act in as much as it has been filed after the statutory period of six weeks from the date when the notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was served upon the respective parties. In so far as this aspect is concerned, it is required to be mentioned that the point as regards institution of the filing of reference under Section 18 beyond the period of limitation was not raised before the learned trial Judge and the said written statement was not thereafter amended till the hearing of this appeal. If this is be so, the point that Reference was filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be accepted. 8. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned judgment and decree dated 28 th February, 1990 will have to be confirmed and the cross-objection will have to be dismissed. Hence, the following order. ORDER i. First appeal stands dismissed. The cross objections filed by the respondent are also dismissed. : 8 : ii. The judgment and decree dated 28 th February, 1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raigad, Dist. Raigad in Land Acquisition Reference No.484 of 1986 is confirmed. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)