1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.19 OF 1996 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.11408 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel) ...Appellant. v. 1 Safiyabibi Abdul Hamid Mulla, 2 Mahamad Yusuf Abdul Haimid Mulla Since deceased his legal heirs 2A Smt. Sabina Mahamad Yusuf Mulla 2B Shri Hasib Mahamad Yusuf Mulla 2C Shri Matin Mahamad Yusuf Mulla 2D Minaj Navadi Divan 3 Abdul Majid Abdul Hamid Mulla 4 Mahamad Noor Abdul Hamid Mulla 5 Mahamad Said Abdul Hamid Mulla 6 Sagir Mahamad Abdul Hamid Mulla 7 Bikis Abdul Wahab Davank 8 Akhtar Abdul Rahman Tungekar 9 Mohasina Abdul Sayyad Khatib 10 Nadira Arit Thakur Nos.1 and 3 to 10 through their power of attorney holders Nos.2 Mahamad Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla ...Respondents. Ms.S.P.Manchekar, AGP For the Appellant/State. Ms.Bhagyashri Joshi i/by D.N.Salvi, advs. for the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 7th September , 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Appeal is filed by the State and cross-objections is filed by the original claimants, whose land was acquired as per the Notification 2 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 3rd February, 1970. 2 Admittedly, for the purpose of establishment of satellite township, which is finally developed as New Bombay, the Government of Maharashtra had acquired huge belts of lands as per the above referred Notification. 3170 sq.m. land comprised in survey nos.103 and 87 of village: Panvel belonging to the claimants/respondents was acquired. Award was passed on 19.3.1985. Claimants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- psm on the ground that land is situated between certain industrial units and near the industrial estate at Panvel at close vicinity of Bombay-Pune Highway, which is national highway and that the lands were also included in the extended Municipal limits of Panvel. It was also at a short distance from railway station . However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award granting compensation at the rate of Rs.6.50 ps. psm. Being not satisfied, claimants made reference application ,which was submitted to the Reference Court and it was registered as land acquisition reference no.244/86. Taking into consideration several aspects and particularly the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.754/86, Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- psm as claimed by the claimants. 3 3 Being aggrieved by the said award, State has preferred the present appeal. It is contended by the State that compensation awarded by the Reference Court is excessive. The claimants also have filed cross objection. According to them, as per the High Court judgment , which was relied upon by the Reference Court , compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- psm should have been granted. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. Only point for consideration are whether the Reference Court was justified in granting compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- psm. and whether the claimants can claim compensation at the rate higher than the rate, which they had claimed before the land acquisition officer and also before the Reference Court. 5 Perused the record and the judgment of the Mumbai High Court ,which was relied upon by the Reference Court. That judgment is now reported as Nama Padu Hudar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra 1993(3) Bombay C.R. 54. In the said matter a bunch of appeals came to be disposed off. The property was situated either at the Panvel or nearby. Division Bench after taking into consideration several aspects, observed as follows in paragraph 26: “26........... Assuming that some of the sites are near railway station and some are not, we feel that in the 4 magnitude of the growth of industrial development and the surrounding areas the disadvantage merely on the ground of distance disappears particularly when there are access roads of Zilla Parishad and State highway available to each of these lands. This being the position, nearness or a little distance away from the highway will be of little significance albeit it may make a difference of a rupee or two in the total evaluation. For this purpose with the assistance of learned counsel of both the parties we had prepared a table showing four groups, the first one showing the lands abutting the Bombay Pune Highway. The survey numbers concern with First Appeals Nos.754 of 1986 and 763 of 1986. The second group refers to lands within a distance of 800 metres from the highway but not exactly abutting the highway. These lands are covered by First Appeal No.751 of 1986 (part) and First Appeal No.756 of 1986. The third group is of lands abutting Kamothe Zilla Parishad but within 1200 metres from the Bombay Pune Highway. These lands are covered by First Appeals Nos.753 of 1986, 751 of 1986 (part) and 752 of 1986. The next group is IV-A covered by First Appeal No.755 of 1986 and the lands in this group are within a distance of 800 to 2200 metres from Bombay Pune Highway, while the last group is Group IV-B of lands covered by First Appeal No.743 of 1986, situate within a distance of 200 to 640 metres from Zilla Parishad Road and Gaothan............................” 6 In the later part of paragraph 26, Division Bench held that compensation could be awarded at the rate of Rs.25/- psm for the lands covered in group I, at the rate of Rs.23/- psm for the lands covered in group II, at the rate of Rs.22/- psm for the lands covered in group III and 5 at the rate of Rs.20/- psm for the lands covered in group IV-A and IV-B. In the present case, the land was situated at the distance of 120 metres from Bombay-Pune National Highway, 1600 mts. from Panvel Railway Station. In view of above referred observations of the Division Bench, lands in the present case would fall in second group, i.e., the lands situated within the distance of 800 mtrs. from the Highway but not exactly abutting Highway. As per the directions given by the Division Bench for such a group, rate of the compensation could be Rs.23/- psm. As the claimants themselves had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- psm. before the Land Acquisition Officer as well as in their reference applications, Reference Court granted compensation as per their claims, ie., at the rate of Rs.20/- psm. In view of the directions given by the High Court in Nama Padu Hudar, compensation awarded by the Reference Court is not excessive. The claimants were granted compensation as per their own claim and now they cannot be allowed to say that because in some matters later on, High Court had decided that compensation could be slightly higher. Infact if the claimants would not have made any reference applications under section 18 and if compensation would have been awarded at such higher rates to some other persons, whose land was acquired under the same award, covered 6 under the same Notification, they could make an application to the Collector under Section 28A for redetermination of the compensation and then if they would not be satisfied with the order of Collector, they could make application to refer the dispute to the Reference Court . However, in the present case, claimants cannot take benefit of Section 28A. They had claimed compensation at a particular rate and being aggrieved by the order of the Acquisition Officer, they also made reference application in which also they claimed compensation at the same rate. The compensation has been granted at that rate. Therefore, they cannot make any grievance when in some other matter compensation has been granted at some higher rate. Therefore, in my opinion, cross objections cannot succeed. 7 For the aforesaid reasons appeal as well as cross- objection stand dismissed. 8 No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)