IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL No. 756 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra … Appellants V/s. 1) Balaram Shankar Bahira (deceased) … Claimants 1/1) Smt. Jamanabai Balaram Bahira & others. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA Date on which Judgment is reserved : 17th January 2008 Date on which Judgment is pronounced : 7th March 2008 J U D G M E N T 1. The appellant State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 4th September 1991 passed by the Ld. 3rd Additional District Judge, Raigad at Alibag in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). The respondents are the original claimants. 2. The acquisition relates to land bearing Survey No. 346(part) admeasuring 4300 sq. meters situated at village Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The said land was notified for acquisition by a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 3rd February 1970. The land was notified for the public purpose of setting up of a Satellite City of Navi Mumbai. The claimants/respondents claimed 60% share in the market value and/or compensation in respect of the acquired land. The compensation offered by the Special Acquisition Officer by an award under Section 11 of the said Act was not accepted by the claimant/respondents and at their instance reference under Section 18 was made. 3. The reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 14 per sq. meters In addition to market value calculated at the rate of Rs. 14 per sq. meters, the reference Court granted statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act. 4. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader in support of the appeal submitted that the market value awarded by the Trial Court is exorbitant. She submitted that there was no evidence adduced by the respondent of comparable sale instances for justifying the market value at the rate of Rs. 14 per sq. meters. It is submitted that there is no legal basis for granting enhancement in market value. 5. None appeared for the respondents. I carefully considered the submissions made by the Learned Assistant Government Pleader. Before the reference Court, the claimants examined the 3rd respondent as a witness. They also examined Shri Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni as an Expert Valuer. Both the witnesses deposed about the non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired land. Both the witnesses deposed about the advantageous location of the acquired land. 6. It is not in dispute that vast tracts of lands at villages Panvel, Kamothe, Taloja, Owe, Pendhar etc. from Panvel Taluka of Raigad District were notified for acquisition under the same Notification dated 3rd February 1970 for the same public purpose. This Court has already decided various First Appeals arising out of awards made in references made under Section 18 of the said Act relating to the lands at aforesaid villages which were notified for acquisition for the same public purpose under the same notification. This Court had an occasion to deal with a group of appeals arising out of lands at village Panvel and village Kamothe. The said group of appeals (First Appeal No. 754/1986 Nama Padu Hudar and Others V/s. State of Maharashtra and other connected matters) was decided on 25th and 26th February 1993 by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench divided the acquired lands in the five separate categories depending upon E-mail ID:- rgit-bhc@nic.in LETTERS 220806 2 the distance of the acquired land from Bombay Pune National Highway and from Zilla Parishad Road. This Court granted higher compensation to the lands which were closer to the said Highway. 7. In case of lands at village Panvel which are abutting Highway, market value at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. meters has been determined. In case of acquired lands which are at a distance up to 2200 meters from the Highway, market value at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. meters has been fixed. The decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid cases has attained finality in the sense that neither the State Government nor the Acquiring Body have challenged the said decision. Therefore, the said decision of Division Bench is certainly relevant for deciding the market value in this case. 8. In the present case, the evidence on record shows that the distance between the acquired land and the Highway is above 3000 meters but below 4000 meters. As pointed out earlier, this Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq. meters of lands abutting highway and market value Rs. 20 per sq. meters been fixed for a land situated upto 2200 meters. In the present case, even assuring that the distance between acquired land and the National Highway is around 4000 meters, market value fixed by the Trial Court at the rate of Rs. 14 per sq. meters cannot beheld to be unreasonable. There is no dispute in the present case regarding entitlement to the statutory benefits which are granted under the impugned Judgment and award. 9. Hence there is no merit in the First Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Abhay S. Oka, J. E-mail ID:- rgit-bhc@nic.in LETTERS 220806 3