IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.551 of 1991. FIRST APPEAL NO.551 of 1991. FIRST APPEAL NO.551 of 1991. State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metre Centre No.9, Panvel, Taluka: Panvel, District Raigad ..Appellant (Original Opponent) versus Smt. Shardabai Ganesh Oze, through her Power of Attorney Smt. Savitakumari Shivkumar Chopra, C/5/21 Model Town, Delhi 110 009 ..Respondent Ms.S.P.Manchekar, AGP for the Appellants. Shri Mandar Limaye for the respondents. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 21st April, 2009. DATED : 21st April, 2009. DATED : 21st April, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT. ORAL JUDGMENT. ORAL JUDGMENT. 1. The respondents held land admeasuring 46000 sq. mts. situated at Village Karanjade, District Raigad. The said land came to be acquired by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.9, Panvel, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as the said Act). Notification in question was issued on 3.2.1970. Award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 12.9.1986. The respondent was aggrieved by the amount of monies granted to -2- her in the Land Acquisition Award and hence she filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The said reference came for determination before the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad at Alibag. (Hereafter referred to as the learned trial Judge). 2. The learned trial Judge by a reasoned judgment dated 3.5.1990 granted compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. meter to the respondents and also granted other benefits like solatium and interest etc and passed detail judgment dated 3.5.1990. The State was aggrieved by the said judgment and that is how this First Appeal came to be filed. 3. I have heard learned Advocates on both the sides. It is noticed that daughter of the respondent by name Savita Kumari has given evidence as regards description of the location of the land and other aspects of the matter. The respondent had benefit of engaging services of the Valuer by name Jivan Kulkarni and respondent has examined said Jivan Kulkarni in support of her case. 4. Based on the evidence of these two -3- witnesses, the learned Trial Judge arrived at a conclusion that the interest of justice would be met if rate awarded is Rs.15/- per sq. meter. He has given reasons in the terms of the judgment impugned. 5. I have heard learned Advocate Ms. Manchekar on behalf of the appellant State. She relied upon the judgment in the First Appeal No.30 of 1993 delivered by this Court on 21.4.2006 in regard to the very village namely Karanjade in which the suit land in the present appeal is situated. She pointed out that the rate granted to the land in question was Rs.13/- per sq. meter. She also relied upon the judgment in the case No.160 of 1991 of 24.6.2008 wherein the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. meter was fixed. Learned Advocate Ms. Manchekar had heavily relied upon the judgment by which the rate at the rate of Rs.13/- per sq. meter was fixed and she pointed out that keeping in view the evidence before the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge ought to have granted the rate at the rate of Rs.13/- per sq. meter. She took me through the entire record and stated that the rate of Rs.13/- is granted to the said village. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the -4- respondent submitted that the learned trial Judge has considered the factual aspect and in particular the non agricultural potential of the land in question and that is how the learned Judge has rightly arrived at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. meter. 6. I have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence of Mr. Jivan Kulkarni, as well as the evidence of Savita Kumari, and the two judgments which were cited before this Court by the learned advocate for the appellant. No doubt, the rate fixed between these two judgements is on the basis of distance in the land in question and the Bombay Pune Road. Needless to mention that the distance between a particular land and that too a important road like Bombay Pune Road would be one factor on the basis of which the value of the land can be arrived at. At the same time, one would also have to look into the peculiar facts of the matter and ascertain whether the rate fixed by the learned trial Judge is right. In paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment it is specifically mentioned that no land from Village Karanjade is converted into non agricultural land for industrial, commercial and residential purposes and even the surrounding -5- lands are also not converted into N.A.Land. Jivan Kulkarni, P.W.1 has specifically given evidence to say that the land in question had good potential to have it converted into non agricultural. If this is so, apart from the distance factor, this aspect is also required to be considered to arrive at the value of the land. In the evidence led before the Court, no specific evidence is placed to show the distance between the land in question and Bombay Pune Highway Road, however, the judgment relied upon in First Appeal No.30 of 1993 would go to show that Village Karanjade is close to the Bombay Pune Road. 7. In my view, the reasons arrived at by the learned trial Judge in fixing the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. meter cannot be considered as improper. The learned trial Judge has given reasons as to why he has fixed the rate at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. meter. In my view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, merely because there is no evidence coming forthwith as to distance between Bombay Pune Road and the land in question, it would not be proper to reject the observations of the learned trial Judge. In any case, one will have to note that the land in question had good potential -6- to have it converted into Non agricultural. If that is so, the respondent is required to be given a reasonable rate. In my view the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. meter will have to be termed in the peculiar facts and circumstances as a reasonable rate. No fault can be found in the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned trial Judge, and that the appeal filed by the appellant is required to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra is dismissed. Appellants to pay respondents costs of this appeal. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)