1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 949 OF 1991 Jama Masjid Trust, Taloja Panchnand through its trustees i) Shri Farooq Mohamed Miya Kazi ii) Shri Jalil A. Gafoor Patel iii)Shri Amin Yusuf Patel ...Appellant Versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer .. Respondent Mr.D.S.Sawant with Rajesh Parab for the Appellant Mr.P.G.Sawant “B” Panel Advocate for the Respondent with FIRST APPEAL NO. 611 OF 1990 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant versus Juma Masjid Trust through its trustees i) Shri Farooq Mohamed Miya Kazi ii) Shri Jalil A. Gafoor Patel iii) Shri A.Amin A.Yusuf Patil All res. Of Taloja Pachanand, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad ...Respondent Mr.P.G.Sawant “B” Panel Advocate for the Appellant 2 Mr.D.S.Sawant with Rajesh Parab for the Respondent CORAM:- A.V. NIRGUDE J. DATED:- 9th NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT. 1. Both these appeals arise from judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad, Alibag, in Reference No.69 of 1988. So it is convenient to decide both these appeals by a common judgment. In order to avoid confusion, I would refer parties by their original status as claimant and respondent. Appeal No.611 of 1990 is filed by the respondent State of Maharashtra, while Appeal No.949 of 1991 is filed by the claimant/owner of the land. The claimant is the owner of the land Survey No.94 Hissa No.1 of Village Owe. It admeasured 2410 sq. meter. As per Section 4 notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act on 4.2.1970, the same was acquired for the purpose of establishing Navi Mumbai town. The Sp. Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31.7.1986 and awarded Rs.1/- per sq. mt. as compensation to the claimant. The claimant challenged the award before the Civil Court by filing Land Acquisition Reference No.69 of 1988. The respondent opposed the reference by filing written statement and in view of the rival contentions the learned Judge of the Reference Court framed certain issues, recorded evidence of the parties and held that the claimant was entitled to Rs.15/- per sq. meter as compensation with certain additional statutory benefits. Since the 3 land in question was in possession of the tenant, the claimant was allowed to have 40% of the compensation amount. As against this, the above mentioned appeals are filed by both the parties. After going through the record and the leading judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No.875 of 1975 and others, dated 16.3.2000, following questions arise for my consideration. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to? The learned Judge of the Reference Court heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the valuer Shri Kulkarni. He was examined by the claimant in support of his claim. On the basis of the evidence of the valuer, the learned Judge of the Lower Court came to the conclusion that the land had non agricultural potential and having regard to the other aspects of the land, he held that he should award Rs.15/- per sq. meter as compensation. Unfortunately, when the impugned judgment was written in 1989, the judgment of the Division Bench, referred to above was not available. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, placed before me a map prepared by CIDCO of areas /villages from which lands were acquired for establishment of Navi Mumbai. Similar map was shown to the Division Bench and the Division Bench, while deciding the amount of compensation to the lands of Village Owe observed as under: “ The next group of appeal refers to the acquisition of 17 lands which are situated at village Owe and they are shown in pink colour in the map. In this group, there are give appeals, out of which two are filed by the State. First Appeal No.291 of 1990 includes two lands bearing Survey Nos.300/2 and 297/1. On examining the location of these lands, it is found that they are quite away from the Highway, Railway Station , Gaothan as well as Industrial Estate. We, 4 therefore, think that the market value of these lands deserves to be fixed at Rs.13.00 per sq. meter. In First Appeal No.292 of 1990, there are five lands bearing Survey Nos.88/6, 88/7A and 7B, 82/1, 82/2 and 82/3. In First Appeal No.373 of 1989, there are ten lands involved and they are as follows : 232/1, 233/7, 243/2A, 250/0, 260/2, 249/1, 248/3, 247/13, 217/4A and 247/22. It is found that all the lands involved in these two appeals are identically situated like the lands in First Appeal No.291 of 1990. Therefore, there is no reason to make any difference, so far as the market value is concerned. We, therefore, fix the market value of these lands at the same rate, that is, Rs.13.00 per sq. meter.” 2. The Division Bench was deciding number of appeals arising from similar claims from various villages such as Owe, Taloja, Pendhar, Navade etc. from where lands were acquired. It had opportunity of examining the issues in a larger perspective. The Division Bench examined evidence of same shri. Kulkarni the valuer and compared the Advantages and Locations of all the adjourning villages vis-a-vis highway as well as Railway Line etc. The Division Bench held that since the Village Owe was situated little away from railway line and highway, the lands there would get Rs.13/- per sq. meter as compensation, whereas the lands of Village Taloje and Pendhar were awarded more compensation because of their proximity to the railway line and the highway. 3. The learned Judge of the Reference Court also examined this aspect of the case on the basis of the evidence which consisted of not only the opinion of the valuer but also the map showing location of the land in question vis-a-vis the railway line and the highway. However, the learned Judge of the Reference Court, as stated above did not have advantage of perusing the judgment of the Division Bench 5 which was delivered a few months subsequent to the judgment of the Reference Court and as stated above, which made the comparative study of the locations of the various lands and various villages vis-a- vis the highway and railway lines. I think the judgment of the Division Bench based on appreciation of the evidence in a larger perspective will prevail over the impugned judgment. 4. In my view, the claimants are entitled to Rs.13/- per sq. meter as compensation with all the statutory benefits given by the learned Judge of the Reference Court . 5. Appeal No.611 of 1990 therefore succeeds and Appeal No.949 of 1991 stands dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.)