: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.561 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.561 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.561 OF 1991 WITH WITH WITH CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.30180 OF 1991 CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.30180 OF 1991 CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.30180 OF 1991 AND AND AND FIRST APPEAL NO.573 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.573 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.573 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra, . Thru’ The Special Land Acquisition . Officer, Metro Centre No.3, . Taluka Panvel, District Raigad ...Appellant V/s. Shardabai Ganesh Oze, . Thru’ Savitakumari Shivkumar Chopra, . R/at C/5/21, Model Town, Delhi-110009 ...Respondent Mr.S.N. Gawade, AGP, for the Appellant. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT :- ORAL JUDGMENT :- ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned AGP for the appellant. When the Appeals were called out yesterday, none appeared for the respondent and, therefore, the Appeals were kept today. When the Appeals are called out today, none appears for the respondent. 2. In these two Appeals, the challenge is to the Judgments and Awards dated 3rd May, 1990 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Raigad at Alibag in References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the : 2 : said Act"). 3. The land subject matter of the First Appeal No.573 of 1991 is bearing Survey No.8 Hissa No.1-A admeasuring 27.3 Ars situated at Village Karanjade, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The land subject matter of the First Appeal No.561 of 1991 is from the same Village bearing Survey No.26 Hissa No.1+2+3 admeasuring 40.3 Ars. The lands were notified for acquisition under the notification dated 3rd February, 1970 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The purpose of acquisition was for setting up of satellite city of Navi Mumbai. The Awards under Section 11 of the said Act were made on 23rd September, 1986. At the instance of the respondent, References were made under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.meter in both the cases. Reference Court has also granted statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act. 4. The submission of the learned AGP is that the respondent-claimant has not adduced evidence of any comparable sale distances. He submitted that the respondent has examined one Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni, a valuer, as a witness. He, however, submitted that the : 3 : sale instances on which the valuer has based his opinion have not been proved before the Trial Court. He submitted that there was no evidence on record adduced by the respondent to discharge the burden of proving that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. He pointed out a decision of this Court in First Appeal No.30 of 1993 (The State of Maharashtra V/s. Imsail A.R.N. since deceased by LRs.) dated 21st April, 2006. He pointed out that considering the distance of the acquired lands from the Bombay-Pune National Highway, the market value awarded by the Reference Court is extremely on the higher side. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. Mr.Kulkarni who was examined as a valuer has deposed in both the cases that the acquired land was situated at a distance of 2,240 meters from Bombay-Pune National Highway. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on the aforesaid decision in First Appeal No.30 of 1993. The learned Single Judge of this Court was dealing with an Appeal arising out of a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act relating to a land at Village Karanjade, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which was notified on the same day for the same public purpose. The learned Single Judge has adopted the : 4 : test of the distance between acquired land and Bombay-Pune National Highway which has been consistently adopted by this Court for determination of market value of various lands acquired for the same public purpose notified on the same date relating to various villages in Taluka Panvel. 6. In the case before the learned Single Judge, the acquired land was situated at the distance of 1,760 meters from Bombay-Pune National Highway. In the case of such land, this Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.13/- per sq.meter. The said decision and the test adopted by this Court is certainly relevant for determining the market value in the present case as the acquired lands in these Appeals are also situated in the same village Karanjade which were notified under the same notification. As pointed out earlier, in these two cases, the distance of the acquired lands from National Highway is of 2,240 meters, therefore, the market value will be certainly less than Rs.13/- per sq.meter, as the said market value has been fixed in respect of a land which is at a distance of 1,760 meters from the said Highway. Adopting the test laid down in the said decision in the First Appeal No.13 of 1993, the market value of the lands subject matter of : 5 : these Appeals will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.meter. To that extent, the Appeal must succeed. The Cross-Objection seeking enhancement in compensation must fail. 7. Hence, I pass the following order:- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" (a). The impugned Judgments and Awards are modified by directing that the respondent is entitled to the market value at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.meter instead of Rs.15/- per sq.meter. (b). The respondent will be entitled to the statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the market value calculated at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.meter. The respondent will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Reference. (c). The exercise of calculating the amount payable under the modified Award will be completed by the Trial Court within a period : 6 : of four months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. (d). The Appeals are partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (e). Cross Objection (St.) No.30180 of 1991 is dismissed with no orders as to costs. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]