1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.748 OF 1998 Shegullabai H. Khandalkar ....Appellant V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel i/b Mr.G.H. Keluskar for the Appellant. Mr.A.R. Patil, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATE : 6TH MAY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This First Appeal is filed by the Claimants against the order and judgment dated 2.5.1998 by the Reference Court, Civil Judge (Senior Judge), Panvel in Land Acquisition Reference No.70 of 1996. By the said order and judgment, the trial Court determined the value of the acquired property at Rs.1970/- per sq.mtr. and also granted the statutory benefits. 2. The facts are not in dispute. As noted in the impugned judgment, the real controversy in the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (“the said Act”) is the market value of the acquired lands. Suffice it to note that the notification under sections 4 and 6 of the said Act were published in the Government gazette on 31.1.1993 and 3.2.1994. The 2 Special Land Acquisition Office also issued the notices under Sections 9 (3) and (4) before holding an enquiry. The Appellant in the written statement claimed an amount of Rs.15,000/- per sq.mtr. as compensation for the acquired lands. Claims were also made by certain other parties with which we are not presently concerned. 3. The S.L.A.O. awarded compensation at Rs.150/- per sq.mtr. On the Appellants’ application, a reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made. The Appellants sought enhancement at the rate of Rs.7500/- per sq.mtr. 4. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the amounts awarded by the S.L.A.O. and by the Reference Court were very low considering the value of the acquired lands which are situated within the limits of the Panvel Municipal Corporation and the same were brought under the town planning scheme. The acquired lands are adjoining the Matheran road and the Panvel – Sion Highway. The Panvel Railway station is at the distance of only 250 mtrs. to 480 mtrs. The Panvel S.T. Stand is at the distance of only about 250 to 350 mtrs. The Bombay – Pune Express Highway is at the distance of 150 mtrs. There are various industrial and commercial establishments within a radius of 1.5 to 5 Kms. All the infrastructure facilities such as water, electricity, educational institutions were already available in the vicinity of the acquired lands at the time of notification. The lands in the surrounding areas were already developed by the City Industrial and Development Corporation (CIDCO). There was enormous development in the surrounding area at the relevant time. Thus the acquired lands had enormous 3 N.A. potentiality at the time of the notification. 5. It is pertinent to note that the Reference Court has also held that there was no dispute that the acquired lands were initially included in the town planning scheme of Panvel and had been alloted the final plot Nos.359 and 357. It is however, more important to note that the Reference Court held that the acquired lands had at the relevant time tremendous N.A. potentiality. Indeed even before us, there was no dispute in this regard. The evidence disclosed that the acquired land was adjacent to the CIDCO. Referring to the evidence of the Appellant’s valuer, the Reference Court came to the following conclusions :- “While perusal of her valuation report and map, there is no dispute that the acquired lands are situated at such a location that all the infrastructural facilities surrounding the acquired lands were in existence at the time of notification, Bombay Pune Express way, railway station, S.T. Stand and Matheran Road is adjoining to the acquired lands. So on considering this situational context,there is no dispute that the location of the acquired land is at such a place that acquired lands are having tremendous NA potentiality. Moreover, certain facts are still favourable. While considering the market price of the acquired lands, that the same were already including in the two planning scheme. This shows that acquired lands were having NA potentiality since beginning prior to notification. So, on the basis of valuation report and map, there is no doubt that the acquired lands are having tremendous NA potentiality.” 6. The Reference Court proceeded on the basis of Exhibit-48 considering it to be the most appropriate instance of sale. The partner of M/s.Status Builders was examined on behalf of the Appellant. He deposed that the firm had purchased the adjacent plot from the CIDCO at the rate of Rs.3310/- per sq.mtr. by an agreement dated 11.12.1989 (Exhibit-48). 4 7. We find no infirmity in the judgment under appeal in this regard. The agreement has been proved in the evidence. It is dated 11.12.1989. The notification under section 4 of the said Act in the present case is dated 31.1.1993. The Reference Court rightly came to the conclusion that it is appropriate to consider this sale instance in the present case in view of the proximity of the land as well as the general nature thereof. There was no dispute in this regard on behalf of the Respondent except to state that the plot in Exhibit-48 was smaller than the acquired property. 8. We are also in agreement with the learned Judge that the price of Rs.3100/- stipulated in Exhibit-48 cannot be awarded in the present case. As rightly submitted on behalf of the Respondent both before the Reference Court and before us, CIDCO sold the said plots after developing the same, whereas the acquired lands were not so developed. The learned Judge deducted 40% as the development charges. We see no reason to interfere with the same. 9. There however is one aspect which according to us the Reference Court failed to consider. The sale instance Exhibit-48 is dated 11.12.1989, whereas the relevant date in the present case is 31.1.1993. The Reference Court has expressly observed that the sale instance had taken place three years prior to the notification and observed :- “one has to bear in mind the rising trend of the prices day to day. So while considering this sale instance, certainly the acquired lands would have fetched the increased price in the year 1993.” However while passing the final order, the learned Judge has 5 failed to provide for any increase in the price for the said period of three years. On the other hand, the learned Judge has deducted from the price in the sale instance by 40%. The impugned order and the judgment therefore warrants interference to this extent only. 10. Considering the fact that the acquired lands are situated in a prime area which is fully developed and as all possible amenities and infrastructure facilities were available at the relevant time, we would have considered the increment at the rate of 15% p.a. However, as the acquired lands are larger than the plot in the sale instance, we limit the increment to 12% p.a. 11. In the result, we confirm the reliance upon Exhibit-48 as an appropriate sale instance in the present case. We would reduce the rate stated therein of Rs.3100/- per sq.mtrs by 40% towards the development costs and thereafter add to the same 36% to provide for a rise in price between the period of the sale instance and the date of the notification in the present case (12% p.a. for three years). 12. In the circumstance, the value of the plot is assessed at Rs.2529- 60 ps. per sq.mtr. The rest of the order of the Reference Court shall remain and shall operate on the basis that the market price fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.1970/- per sq.mtr. is substituted with the rate of Rs.2529.60 ps. per sq.mtr. There shall be no order as to costs. The decree shall be drawn accordingly. 6 (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)