-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.506 OF 1991 APPEAL NO.506 OF 1991 APPEAL NO.506 OF 1991 WITH WITH WITH CROSS CROSS CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.1171 OBJECTION ST.NO.1171 OBJECTION ST.NO.1171 OF 1994 OF 1994 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. Janu Halya Bhingarkar @ Govari (since deceased through his L.Rs.) 1.Changubai Janu Bhingarkar @ Govari (since deceased through his legal heirs) 2. Chaya Janu Bhingarkar @ Govari (since deceased through his legal heirs) 2A) Kalabai Chaya Bhingarkar @ Govari 2B) Kamala Ashok Patil 3.Ragho Janu Bhingarkar @ Govari 4.Sita Dattaram Patil 5.Anandi Anata Mundakar 6.Surekha Kamalakar Mundakar 7.Balkrishna Janu Bhingarkar @ Govari ...Respondents Mr.S.N.Gawade,A.G.P. for State Mr.Sachin Punde h/f Mr.Rajiv Patil for the respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : JANUARY 16,2008 : JANUARY 16,2008 : JANUARY 16,2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Advocates for the parties. The challenge in this Appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 26th July 1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raigad at Alibag. The said Judgment and Award has been passed in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). 2. The acquisition relates to a land admeasuring 7035 -2- sq.meters at village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel District Raigad. A notification under section 4 of the said Act of 1894 was issued on 3rd February 1970 notifying the acquired land for the public purpose of setting up a satellite city of Navi Mumbai. As the Respondent claimant did not accept the award under section 11 of the said Act, a reference under section 18 of the said Act was made. The respondent claimed compensation at rate of Rs.25/- per sq. meter. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the market value of Rs.15/- per sq. meter has been fixed. 3. The submission of the learned A.G.P. for State is that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. The submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that the case is governed by the decision of this court in case of Nama Padu Hudar and others vs. State of Maharashtra in First Appeal No.754 of 1958 and other connected matters. The said decision is dated February 25th and 26th,1993. He submitted that the Appeal be dismissed and cross objection be allowed. 4. I have considered the submissions. The Division Bench dealt with the Appeals arising out of awards made under section 18 of the said Act of 1894 in respect of the lands acquired from Village Panvel and Kamothe of Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The said lands were also notified for acquisition by notification under section 4 of the said Act of 1894 dated 3rd February 1970 and the acquisition was also for -3- the public purpose of developing satellite city of New Bombay. After considering the location of various lands in the said villages, the Division Bench divided various lands into five categories depending upon the location of land with reference to Bombay Pune national highway and with reference to the Zilla Parishad Road. The decision of the Division Bench has attained finality. There is no reason why the decision of Division bench of this Court should not be followed in the present case. As the said decision of the Division Bench has attained finality, the present Appeal will have to be decided in terms of the said decision. 5. Now turning to the facts of the present case, the respondent-claimant has examined one Shri Jivan Narayan Kulkarni as an expert valuer. His report has been admitted in evidence at Exh.24. The report discloses that the acquired land is situated at the distance of 2400 meters from the Bombay Pune national highway. There is no cross examination of the expert on the said aspect of the distance. The land will not fall in any of the categories mentioned in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). However, it must be noted that in a case where the acquired land is situated at a distance of 2200 meters from the highway, the Division Bench has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.meter and in a case of the land which is situated at the distance of 200 meters from the highway, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.meter. In case of the land abutting the -4- highway, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.meter. The Apex Court has held that while determining the market value under section 23 of the said Act, there is always an element of guess work. considering the aforesaid rates fixed by the Division Bench, this is a case where the market value will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.19/- per sq. meter. 6. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Appeal is dismissed. The Appellant-State of Maharashtra will pay costs of the Appeal to the Respondent. ii) The cross objection is partly allowed. Impugned Judgment and Award is modified by holding that the Respondent will be entitled to market value at the rate of Rs.19/- per sq.meter and the statutory benefits under section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. iii) The Respondent-claimant will be entitled to proportionate costs of the reference as well as the cross objection. iv) The Reference Court will calculate the compensation amount payable to the Respondent-claimant within a period of four months from the date on which the writ of this order is received by the Reference Court. -5- v) Writ and Record and Proceedings to be sent immediately. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE