ash 1 fa-487.88 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.487 OF 1988 Mahadu Dhaya Madhavi, ) since deceased by his legal heir:- ) Smt. Janibai Changa Surate, ) At -Motha Khanda, At & Post – Panvel, ) Dist: Riagad. ).. Appellant Vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ) Metro Centre No.4, Panvel, Dist: Riagad. ).. Respondents -- Shri S.M.Kamble for the Appellant. Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 21ST JUNE, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . By this Appeal, the Appellant has taken an exception to the judgment and award in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 2. The Land subject matter of acquisition is Survey No.43/1, admeasuring 16503 sq. Meters at Kalundre, Taluka Panvel , District – Raigad. The land was notified for acquisition on 3rd February, 1970 by a Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act for the purpose of setting up the satellite ash 2 fa-487.88 city of New Bombay. The award under Section 11 of the said Act was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the year 1979 by which the market value was offered at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq. Meter. At the instance of the Appellant, a Reference was made under Section 18 of the said Act. In the Reference Application, the market value was claimed at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq. Meter. The Reference Court, by the impugned award, granted market value at the rate of R.4/- per sq. Meter. As the Appellant had ½ share in the acquired land, he was entitled to receive the ½ of the compensation amount. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant pointed out that a Civil Application No.723 of 2004 was filed by the Claimant for enhancement of the claim. He placed reliance on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Narayan Patil ( since deceased through his L.Rs.) Pralhad Sitaram Patil & Others, (2010(2) Mh.LJ. 387). He pointed out that the Division Bench held that the Application for enhancement of the claim made under Section 18 of the said Act can be considered even in an appeal arising out of an award made under Section 18 of the said Act. He relied upon the decision of the learned Singe Judge of this Court wherein the market value was fixed at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq. Meter in respect of the land at Village Kalundre. The learned AGP opposed the appeal and the prayer for enhancement in the claim. He submitted that no case for enhancement of compensation was made out. 4. I have considered the submissions. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Narayan Patil (supra), ash 3 fa-487.88 the prayer made for amendment will have to be allowed, inasmuch as, in various decisions, this Court has granted market value at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq. Meter in respect of the land from the same village notified on the same date for the same purpose. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Govind Kanu Madhavi since deceased through his Lrs. Kamal Dattu Madhavi & Others. v. State of Maharashtra (2004(4) Mh.LJ 216) as well as the judgment and order dated 21st December, 2005 in First Appeal No.120 of 1993. The lands subject matter of these decisions were situated in the village Kalundre which were notified on the same date for the same public purpose. In First Appeal No. 120 of 1993, the learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 31st March, 2004 in First Appeal No.757 of 2003 wherein in respect of the land at Village Kalundre, the market value was fixed at Rs.23/- per sq. Meter. In both the decisions, this Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was at Rs.25/- per sq. Meter. However, the deduction of Rs.2/- per square meter was made on account of development charges. The decisions of this Court relied upon by the appellant have attained finality in the sense that the same have not been challenged. The said decisions will certainly apply in the present case. Hence, the Appeal must succeed to that extent. 6. As far as the statutory benefits are concerned, it appears that the Trial Court has rightly not granted statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) ash 4 fa-487.88 inasmuch as the award under Section 11 of the said Act was made prior to 30th April, 1982. However, the Appellant will be entitled to statutory benefits under Section 23(2) and 28 of the said Act. 7. Hence, I pass the following order :- (a) Civil Application No. 723 of 2004 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (b) The Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified and it is declared that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.23/- per sq. Meter. (b) The appellant will be entitled to the statutory benefits under Section 23(2) and 28 of the said Act. (c) It is made clear that as the Appellant had ½ share in the acquired land, he will be entitled to 50% of the compensation. The Appellant will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Reference as well as this Appeal. (d) The Reference Court shall determine compensation payable as per the modified award within a period of three months from the date on which the writ of this judgment is received by the said Court. ash 5 fa-487.88 (e) Enhanced compensation shall be deposited by the State Government within a period of three months from the date on which the compensation amount is determined by the Reference Court. ( A.S. OKA, J )