1 76 fa.26.05 n 27.05 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2005 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Kashinath Babu Patil and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Appellant. Mr. Sachin Punde for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24 th August, 2011. JUDGMENT: 1 The challenge in these appeals is the the common judgment in references under Section 28-A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The acquisition relates to lands at village Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, which were notified for the public purpose of setting up satellite city of New Bombay by notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act issued on 3 rd February, 1970. The Respondents – claimants did not seek reference 2 76 fa.26.05 n 27.05 under Section 18 of the said Act. However, on the basis of the judgment and award of the Reference Court, in Land Acquisition Reference No.71 of 1982, the Respondents applied for re- determination of the market value of the acquired lands by invoking Section 28-A(1) of the said Act. On re-determination, the market value was offered at the rate of Rs.9/- per square meter by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. As the said market value was not accepted by the Respondents, at their instance, references under Section 28-A(3) of the said Act were made. By the impugned judgment and award, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.28/- per square meter and statutory benefits have been granted under Section 23 (1-A), Section 23(2) ans Section 28 of the said Act. 2 The learned AGP in support of the appeals submitted that the market value fixed at the rate of Rs.28/- per square meter is exorbitant. He submitted that the market value could not have exceeded Rs.20/- per square meter. The learned counsel appearing 3 76 fa.26.05 n 27.05 for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment by submitting that on the basis of the evidence and awards of comparable lands, the market value at the rate of Rs.28/- per square meter has been fixed. He submitted that no interference is called for. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. 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 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 4 76 fa.26.05 n 27.05 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. 4 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 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: 5 76 fa.26.05 n 27.05 “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 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 76 fa.26.05 n 27.05 5 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 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- 7 76 fa.26.05 n 27.05 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.” 6 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 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). 7 In the facts of the appeals, the finding recording by the 8 76 fa.26.05 n 27.05 Reference Court on the basis of the evidence of valuer Mr.V.M.Vaidya is that the acquired lands were situated at a distance of 100 meters from the Bombay – Pune National highway. Therefore, these cases will be governed by Clause (b) of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar (supra). Therefore, the market value will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.23/- per square meter and to that extent, the appeals will have to be allowed. There is no dispute regarding the grant of statutory benefits in the present cases. 8 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned judgments and awards are modified and the market value fixed by the Reference Court is brought down to Rs.23/- per square meter. Rest of the impugned awards regarding grant of statutory benefits and costs is maintained ; ii. The appeals are partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs ; and 9 76 fa.26.05 n 27.05 iii. The Civil Application No.3701 of 2005 and the Civil Application No.3702 of 2005 do not survive and the same are disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]