1 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 18 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Peersha Jamalsha Darga, Public Trust, through its Trustees: a) Ibrahim Shaikh Mujawar and others ... Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 20 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Peersha Jamalsha Darga, Public Trust, through its Trustees: a) Ibrahim Shaikh Mujawar. ... Respondent ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1286 OF 1996 Chander Mahadu Bhende. ... Appellant Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer. ... Respondent 2 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 923 OF 1997 WITH CROSS OBJECTION (stamp) NO. 25130 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Jagannath Baban Govari and others. ... Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 199 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Vasant Lalchand Munot and others. ... Respondents AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 560 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Rajani Chandrakant Korade. ... Respondent ----- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the State in all matters. Mr. C.G.Gawanekar for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 in F.A.No.923 of 1997 and for the Cross Objectionists in Cross Objection (st) No.25130 of 2006. Mr. G.H.Keluskar i/b Mr.N.V.Walawalkar for the Appellant in F.A.No.1286 of 1996. ----- 3 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17 th March, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The appeals are called out for final hearing. These appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. The appeals arise out of references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter refereed to as “the said Act”). The lands subject matter of acquisition in these appeals are at villages Kamothe and Panvel in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act was issued on 3 rd February, 1970 by which the lands were notified for acquisition for the public purpose of setting up of satellite city of New Bombay. The awards under Section 11 of the said Act were not accepted by the claimants and therefore, references under Section 18 were made to the Civil Court. 2 First Appeal No. 18 of 1996 has been preferred by the State Government for challenging the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 235 of 1986 under which the market value has been fixed 4 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.18/- per square meter in respect of a land at village Panvel. First Appeal No. 20 of 1996 takes exception to the award made in Land Acquisition Reference No.236 of 1986. By the impugned award, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per square meter in respect of a land at village Panvel. First Appeal No. 1286 of 1996 has been preferred by the original claimant. The market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.14/- per square meter under the impugned award in respect of the land at village Kamothe passed in land Acquisition Reference No.645 of 1987. First Appeal No. 923 of 1997 has been preferred by the State Government for challenging the award in Land Acquisition Reference No.720 of 1986. The market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.14/- per square meter in respect of the lands at village Kamothe. In the said appeal, there is a cross objection filed by the original claimants in which the market value has been claimed at the rate of Rs.30/- per square meter. First Appeal No. 199 of 2001 has been preferred by the State Government for challenging the award made in Land Acquisition Reference No. 265 of 1987 wherein the Reference Court has fixed the market value at the rate 5 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS of Rs.12/- per square meter in respect of the lands at village Kamothe. First Appeal No. 560 of 2001 has preferred by the State Government challenging the award in Land Acquisition Reference No. 7 of 1975 wherein the Reference Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square meter has been fixed in respect of the lands at village Panvel. 3 I have heard the submissions of the learned AGP appearing for the State. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the claimants in first Appeal No.1286 of 1996 and First Appeal No.923 of 1997 in support of their claim for enhancement. 4 The Apex Court in the case of Avinash Dhavaji Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 171 dealt with an appeal arising out of the award made under Section 18 of the said Act relating to acquisition of land at village Wahal in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, which was notified under notification dated 3 rd February, 1970 for the same public purpose. The Apex Court while dealing with the facts of 6 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS the case has noted that vast tracts of the lands from 96 villages situated in Thane and Raigad districts were notified for acquisition in the year 1970 for the public purpose of setting up satellite city of New Bombay. The Apex noted that in almost all such cases, the award was belatedly declared. The Apex Court noted that there were hardly any sale transactions in the area in view of the acquisition. The Apex Court observed that potentiality of the land for the purpose of development and building purpose depends on large number of factors. The Apex Court also observed that the Court has to bear in mind not only the the purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired, but also the subsequent events to some extent. 5 The Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 25 th and 26 th February, 1993 decided various appeals arising out of awards made under Section 18 of the said Act relating to lands at villages Panvel and Kamothe, which were notified on the same date for the same public purpose. By the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court decided the case of Nama Padu Hudar and others Vs. The State of 7 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS Maharashtra (First Appeal No.754 of 1986) with other connected first appeals. The Division Bench adopted belting method by dividing the acquired lands into five different categories for the purpose of fixing the market value depending upon its distance either from the Bombay-Pune national highway or from the Zilla Parishad road. The categories made by the Division Bench and the market value fixed by the Division Bench for the respective categories read thus: “Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Appeal sq.Mt. Granted No. P.S.M. Rs.Ps. I. 754/1986 671 1(Part) 8240 25/00 Abutting the Highway 763/1986 694 2 5870 25.00 698 2 510 25.00 704 7 1060 25.00 704 2 3310 25.00 II. 751/1986 598 2/5 4270 23.00 within (Part) 800 Metres 756/1986 665 1B 2450 23.00 665 1D 1860 23.00 663 1/5 1340 23.00 660 3 5830 23.00 III. 753/1986 614 2 3100 22.00 Abutting 751/1986 617 2 4350 22.00 Kamothe Z.P. (Part) Road to 1200 Metres 752/1986 548 7(Part) 2500 22.00 8 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS IV-A 755/1986 209 9 4560 20.00 800 Mtrs to 2200 Mtrs 213 10 1900 20.00 from Bombay- Poona Highway IV-B 200 Mtrs. From Z.P.Rd. 743/1986 240 2 1900 20.00 & Gaothan to 640 Mtrs. From Z.P. Rd. 274 2 4760 20.00 & Gaothan.” 6 The State of Maharashtra did not challenge the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar and others (supra). The method adopted by the Division Bench of this Court was approved by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 6 th March, 2006 in Civil Appeal No. 1550 of 2006. The said decision was in the case of Shantadevi Ru- parel Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another. At this stage, it must be also noted that the method adopted by this Court in the case of Nama Padu Hudar and others (supra) was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Dhavaji Naik (supra). The Apex Court observed that the said method may apply in case of lands in the vicinity of highway. It must be noted hear that another group of appeals arising out of lands 9 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS at villages Panvel and Kamothe notified on the same date for the same public purpose came up before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar (2008 (5) Bombay Cases Reporter 708). The Division Bench of this Court con- sidered its earlier decision in the case of Nama Padu Hudar and others (supra) and divided the lands into three categories depending upon its distance from the national highway. In paragraph No.17 of the said deci- sion, the said three categories have been made. The said paragraph reads thus: “17. The claimants would be entitled to compensation for acquisition of their lands as under:- (a) Lands falling within 750 metres of the National Highway – Rs.25/- per sq. Metre. (b) Land falling within 750 to 1500 metres of the National Highway – Rs.23/- per sq. Metre. (c) Land falling beyond 1500 metres of the National Highway – Rs.21/- per sq. Metre.” 7 As of today, the said decision has become final. The aforesaid decision of this Court determining the market value as on 3 rd February, 1970 related to agricultural lands and in these appeals relate to 10 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS the agricultural lands. Therefore, considering the fact that the view taken by this Court is in respect of the lands in the same villages notified on the same date for the same public purpose, the compensation will have to be determined as per the decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar (supra). 8 Now the facts of the case in the appeals will have to be examined. In First Appeal No. 18 of 1996, by the impugned award, market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.18/- per square meter in respect of the land at village Panvel. In First Appeal No. 20 of 1996 in respect of the land at village Panvel, market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- per square meter. In the impugned award subject matter of challenge in First Appeal No.1286 of 1996, market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.14/- per square meter in respect of a land at village Kamothe. In the award subject matter of challenge in First Appeal No. 923 of 1997, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.14/- per square meter in respect of the lands at village Kamothe. In the award, which is subject matter of challenge in First Appeal No. 199 of 2001, the 11 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.12/- per square meter in respect of the land at village Kamothe and in the last appeal being First Appeal No. 560 of 2001, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.15/- per square meter in respect of the land at village Panvel. As stated above, the minimum market value of the lands in the last category under the decision of the Division Bench in the case of the State of Maharashtra V/s. Prashan V. Deodhar (supra) has been fixed at the Rate of Rs.21/- per square meter. The market value fixed by the awards under challenge is less than Rs.21/- per square meter. Therefore, the appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra will have to be dismissed. 9 As far as First Appeal No.1286 of 1996 is concerned, the Appellant – claimant examined one Mr.Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni as a valuer and an expert witness. The valuation report (Exhibit-18) of the expert was proved, which discloses that the distance between the acquired land and the national highway is 2480 meters. Therefore, this case will be governed by the third category where market value will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.21/- per square meter. 12 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS 10 Now turning to the First Appeal No.923 of 1997 where cross objection has been filed, the plan drawn by Mr.Manohar Vaidya, valuer, which is at Exhibit-40 shows that the distance between acquired lands having different survey numbers from the Highway ranges between 1300 meters to 2400 meters. Taking the average of the distances, the distance comes to 1510 meters from the highway. Therefore, in this case, market value will have to be fixed at minimum rate of Rs.21/- per square meter as provided in the third category of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. 11 Hence, I pass the following order: i. First Appeal No. 18 of 1996, First Appeal No.20 of 1996, First Appeal No.923 of 1997, First Appeal No. 199 of 2001 and First Appeal No.560 of 2001 are dismissed with no order as to costs ; ii. First Appeal No. 1286 of 1996 and Cross Objection (stamp) No.25130 of 2006 in First Appeal No.923 of 1997 are partly allowed ; 13 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS iii. The award made in Land Acquisition Reference No.645 of 1987 (subject matter of First Appeal No. 1286 of 1996) and Land Acquisition Reference No. 720 of 1986 (subject matter of Cross Objection (Stamp) No. 25130 of 2006) are modified. The claimants therein will be entitled to total market value at the rate of Rs.21/- per square meter inclusive of market value offered by the award under Section 11 of the said Act. In addition, the claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits under Section 23 (1A), 23 (2) and Section 28 of the said Act. The claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs of the references as well as First Appeal No. 1286 of 1996 and Cross-Objection (stamp) No. 25130 of 2006 in these two cases. iv. Civil Application No. 3764 of 1996 in First Appeal No.18 of 1996 is disposed of ; v. Civil Application No. 1453 of 2009 and Civil Application No. 1454 of 2009 in First Appeal No. 923 of 1997 are hereby allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) to (d). Amendment be carried out 14 902 FA.18.96 OTHERS within a period of six weeks from today ; vi. Civil Application No. 6314 of 1998 in First Appeal No.560 of 2001 does not survive and the same is disposed of ; vii. Where the appeals preferred by the State Government are dismissed and compensation amount is lying deposited with the Reference Court, the said Court will permit withdrawal of the amount by the claimants. [ A.S.OKA, J ]