1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.458 OF 1996 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7307 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra (through the Spl. Land Acq.Officer,MetroCentreNo. 1,Thane.) ...Appellant. v. 1 Shri Dattatray alias Shivram Vasudeo Samant (Since deceased through his legal heirs) 1A Vilas Shivram Samant Son, age 61 yrs., 1B. Smt. Indumati Shivram Samant Wife, age 82 years, Both 1A and 1B are residing at Ground Floor, Ner Ghantali Mandir, Thane-2. 1C Shri Vikas Shivram Samant Son, Age 60 yrs., R/at C-10, 3rd floor, Samant Block, Near Ghantali Mandir, Thane-2. 1D. Sou. Uma Deepak Samant Married daughter, Age 57 years, R/at C-10, Sumernagar, S.V.Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092. 2 Shri Narayan Vasudeo Samant Since deceased through his heirs 2A Smt. Shakuntala Narayan Samant 2B Suhas Narayan Samant 2C Milind Narayan Samant 2D Makarand Narayan Samant 3 Shri Nandkumar Vasudeo Samant Since deceased through his legal heirs 3A Smt. Nalini Nandkumar Samant, Wife, Age 75 years, 3B Sou. Chhaya Arjun Malshiras Married Daughter 2 3C Sou. Manisha Dattatray Bhakare Married Daughter, 3D Shri Shekhar Nandkumar Samant Son All r/at C/o.Datta Bhakare, Shruti Nivas, Siddheshwar Mandir Road, Behind Tin Taki, Singnagar, Pachpakhadi, Thane (West), Thane ...Respondents. Ms.S.P.Manchekar, AGP For the Appellant/State. Ms. Varsha Sawant i/by Ms.Gauri Godse, advs. For the Respondent Nos. 2A to 2D and 3A to 3D. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 5th October , 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 The appeal is filed by the State against the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court. 2 To state in brief, for the purpose of establishment of satellite city to be known as New Bombay, the Government decided to acquire huge land from different villages of District Thane and Raigad. Accordingly, on 4.2.1970, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in respect of lands situated within the limits of village Dive, District: Thane. In due course notice under Section 6 came to be issued and finally award was passed on 10.9.1986. Total land acquired was 5969 sq.mtrs. by the land acquisition officer. On the said land, there was residential house of the claimant. there was also a well 3 and cattle shed. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards the compensation on account of cost of construction of the house, Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of well and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of cattle shed. He claimed compensation for land @ Rs.10/- psm. As against the claim, Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market rate of the land @ Rs. 2/- psm and he awarded an amount of Rs.6679/- towards the value of the house structure and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of well. Nothing was awarded towards the value of the cattle shed. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimants made a reference application and accordingly, the reference was submitted to the District Court, Thane under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. After hearing the parties, the learned Joint District Judge fixed the market rate of the land @ Rs.10/- psm. He also awarded additional compensation of Rs.9,000/- in respect of house structure and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of well and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of cattle shed. Compensation was to carry additional component @ 12% p.a. Solatium @ 30% and interest as per law. 3 According to the State, enhancement in the compensation granted by the Reference Court was not justified. 4 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the 4 impugned judgment and record. 5 At the outset, it may be stated that in respect of land at Dive in First Appeal No.2188/05 decided on 10th October, 2007, it was held that compensation @ Rs.10/- psm is just and reasonable. Not only that recently this Court had decided a group of appeals being the First Appeal No.277 of 1995 in State of Maharashtra vs. Shri Shantaram P. Madhavi and Others wherein this Court held that compensation @ Rs. 10/- psm is reasonable. Therefore, to the extent of enhanced rate of compensation of land, I see no material in favour of the State. 6 As far as additional compensation for the house structure is concerned, record reveals that according to the claimant, house was constructed by him in 1958 and he had spent Rs.60,000/- towards the construction of house. House consisted of one bedroom, hall, kitchen, Varanda, bathroom, toilets. Flooring was of cement, walls were of cement and bricks and it had RCC roof also. He also examined one architect namely, Prabhakar Waman Bhole, who visited spot on 6th December, 1986 and after inspection he submitted his report. He assessed cost of construction on the basis of prices prevailing in 1969-70, possibly because Notification under Section 4 was issued during that financial year. As per his report, plinth of the structure was of stones and 5 the upper structure was of the cement and bricks. Area of the structure was 530 sq.ft. It had water supply from the well situated near the house without electricity. According to him, cost of construction was Rs.120/- psf of built up area during that period and accordingly, he estimated value of the structure at Rs.63,600/-. The learned Joint District Judge did not accept his evidence fully. He noted that even though the construction was made sometime in 1957-58, the architect had assessed the cost of construction on the basis of rates prevailing during 1969-70. As noted above, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation @ Rs.6679/- towards the value of the house structure. After discussing the evidence and material on record, the learned Joint District Judge granted additional compensation of Rs.9,000/- which makes the total value of the house structure at Rs.15,679/-. It is slightly less than 25% of the value estimated by the valuer. Taking into consideration the nature of the structure and its size, it is difficult to find any fault with the additional compensation awarded by the learned Joint District Judge. Compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was very meagure and therefore, enhancement was justified . Taking into consideration the manner in which the Special Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value of the structures at such low rates, the Reference 6 Court awarded additional compensation of Rs.1,000/- for well and Rs. 1,000/- for cattle shed. It is difficult to say that this additional compensation was not justified; atleast no such material is placed before this Court to show that it was excessive or not justified. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 As the appeal itself is dismissed, Civil Application No. 7307/96 for stay does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)