1 912 fa.1104.98 anr.doc ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1104 OF 1998 WITH CROSS OBJECTION (stamp) NO. 41154 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Vishnu Krishnaji Joshi and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Appellant. Mr. G.H.Keluskar for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17 th March, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The Appellant – State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 6 th July, 1991 passed by the Reference Court in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 2 The acquisition relates to land bearing Survey No.108, Hissa No.0, admeasuring 1190 square meters, situated at village Asudgaon, 2 912 fa.1104.98 anr.doc Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The land was notified for acquisition by a notification under Section 4 (1) of the said Act on 3 rd February, 1970 for the public purposes of setting up the satellite city of New Bombay. The award made under Section 11 was not accepted by the Respondents – claimants and therefore, reference under section 18 at their instance was made. By the impugned judgment and award, the trial Court has fixed market value at the rate of Rs.12/- per square meter. By filing cross- objection, the Respondents-claimants have claimed market value at the rate of Rs.30/- per square meter. 3 The learned AGP appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Respondents have not adduced evidence of any comparable sale instances and did not discharge the burden on them to prove that the amount offered under Section 11 was inadequate. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt.Kamali Keshav Mhatre and ors, 2005 (1) ALL MR 459. He submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has fixed market value of 3 912 fa.1104.98 anr.doc the acquired lands situated in the same village which were notified on the same date for the same public purpose. He submitted that the present case will be governed by the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Kamali Keshav Mhatre and others (supra). Perusal of the said decision shows that this Court dealt with the appeals preferred by the State Government against the awards made under Section 18 of the said Act relating to acquisition of lands in the same village Asudgaon. The lands subject matter of the appeals before the Division Bench of this Court were also notified under Section 4 (1) of the said Act on 3 rd February, 1970 for the public purposes of setting up the satellite city of New Bombay. After considering the evidence on record, the Division Bench of this Court followed belting method by dividing the lands into three groups on the basis of its distance from the national highway. Paragraph No.8 of the said judgment reads thus: 4 912 fa.1104.98 anr.doc “8. The first group will consist of the lands situated within 750 mts, of the National Highway where the market value is fixed at Rs.28/-. Considering 10% deduction and rounding the figure we fix the market value at Rs.25/-. This will be the market value for all such lands in the group of appeals. The second group will consist of lands situated between 750 and 1500 sq. mts. In respect of these lands we fix the market value at Rs.26/-. Considering 10% deduction and rounding the figure we fix the market value at Rs.23/- per sq. mt. The third category will include the lands beyond 1500 sq. mt. We fix the market value of these lands at Rs.23.50 p. and after deducting 10% and rounding the figure, fix the market value at Rs.21/-” 5 The decision of the Division Bench of this Court has attained finality. As stated earlier, the decision relates to acquisition of lands from the same village notified on the same date for the same public purpose. As the decision of the Division Bench of this Court has become final, the same will have to be followed in the present case. 6 There is nothing on record to show that the acquired land in the present case falls within the first two categories specified by the Division Bench of this Court. The report and evidence of the valuer examined by the Respondents shows that both the Bombay–Pune 5 912 fa.1104.98 anr.doc national highway and Panvel–Sion highway are far away from the acquired land. Therefore, the present case will be covered by the third category and accordingly, after granting deduction for development charges, the market value will be Rs.21/- per square meter. 6 Hence, I pass the following order: i. First Appeal No. 1104 of 1998 is dismissed with no order as to costs ; ii. Cross Objection (stamp) No. 41154 of 1999 is partly allowed; iii. The impugned award is modified by holding that the market value of the acquired land is fixed at the rate of Rs.21/- per square meter. In addition to the market value, the Respondents – claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23 (1A), 23 (2) and Section 28 of the said Act; iv. The claimants will be also entitled to proportionate costs of the reference and cross-objection; v. The trial Court shall determine the amount payable as per the modified award within a period of three months from the date on which writ of this judgment is received by the trial Court; 6 912 fa.1104.98 anr.doc vi. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the Appellant with the trial Court within a period of three months from the date on which the amount is determined by the trial Court. [ A.S.OKA, J ]