1 920-commonjudgmentfa ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.2374 OF 2005 WITH CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.6124 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2374 OF 2005 The Government of Maharashtra and others ...Appellants vs. Hirya Kanu Mhatre ...Respondent ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2375 OF 2005 WITH CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.6126 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2375 OF 2005 The Government of Maharashtra and others ...Appellants vs. Indubai Kisan Kambale ...Respondent ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2376 OF 2005 AND CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.6129 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2376 OF 2005 The Government of Maharashtra and others ...Appellants vs. Chandrakant Janu Mhatre & Ors. ...Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2377 OF 2005, CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.6131 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2377 OF 2005 The Government of Maharashtra and others ...Appellants vs. Ganpat Kana Pagade D/H Bhalchandra Ganpat Pagade & Ors. ...Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2378 OF 2005, CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.6133 OF 2006 IN 2 920-commonjudgmentfa FIRST APPEAL NO.2378 OF 2005 The Government of Maharashtra and others ...Appellants vs. Harishchandra Pangalya Thakur & Ors....Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2379 OF 2005, CROSS APPEAL ST.NO.6136 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2379 OF 2005 The Government of Maharashtra and others ...Appellants vs. Savalaram Kanya Bhagat D/H Ramdas Savalaram Bhagat & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the appellant in all appeals Mr.S.G.Surana for the respondents in all appeals CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard learned A.G.P for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The parties were put to notice that the appeals will be taken up for final disposal. In these appeals, there is a challenge to the Judgments and Awards passed by the Reference Court in references under section 28-A (3) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act. 2 The appeals relate to the lands situated at village Ambetkhar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which were notified on 3rd February 1970 under section 4(1) of the said Act for the public purpose of setting up satellite city of Navi Mumbai. Awards 3 920-commonjudgmentfa under section 11 of the said Act were made on different dates between 2nd February 1976 to 20th October 1981. There were no references filed by the respondents under section 18 of the said Act. On the basis of the various awards made under section 18 of the said Act by the Reference Court in respect of the lands in the same village notified on the same date for the same public purpose, the respondents sought re-determination of the market value under section 28-A (1) of the said Act. As the respondents did not accept the market value as re-determined, at their instance, references under section 28-A (3) were made. By the impugned Judgments and Awards, the market value has been fixed in some cases at Rs.29/- per sq. meter and in other cases at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq meter. Statutory benefits have been granted under section 23-A (1) and 23(2) and 28 of the said Act. 3 The learned A.G.P relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court submitted that the market value of the acquired lands could not exceeded Rs.25/- per sq meter. He submitted that the awards under section 11 of the said Act in these cases have been declared prior to 30th April 1982 and therefore, the respondents will not be entitled to statutory benefits under section 23(1-A) of the said Act. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned Judgment and submits that no interference is called for. He prayed for enhancement in market value as prayed in the cross objections. 4 920-commonjudgmentfa 4 I have considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that vast tracts of lands in various villages in Taluka Panvel of District Raigad were notified on 3rd February 1970 under section 4(1) of the said Act for the public purpose of setting up satellite city of Navi Mumbai. As far as village Ambetkhar is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 9th June 2011 decided First Appeal no.113 of 1998 in the case of Pannalal Motilal Munot & another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer along with a cross appeal. The said Appeal arose out of lands situated at village Ambetkhar which were notified on 3rd February 1970 under section 4(1) of the said Act for the same public purpose. This Court after considering the situation of village Ambetkhar, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq meter. The Division Bench deducted 20% on account of development charges. Following the said decision, the same view has been taken by this Court by Judgment and Order dated 14th March 2006 in First Appeal no.104 of 1988 and other connected Appeals. 5 Perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that no evidence was adduced to show that the lands subject matter of these appeals were more valuable than the the lands in the same village in respect of which the market value has been fixed by this Court. Therefore, the market value will have to be brought down to Rs.25/- per sq meter. A deduction of 20% will have to be made on account of development cost. As the Awards under section 11 of the said Act were passed prior to 30th April 1982, the respondents will 5 920-commonjudgmentfa not be entitled to benefit under section 23(1-A) of the said Act. In view of the decisions of this Court referred to above, the cross objections will have to be dismissed. The appeals must succeed in part. 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgments and Awards are modified by holding that the total market value of the acquired land shall be Rs.25/- per sq meter. However, 20% of the market value shall be deducted on account of development charges. In addition, the respondents-claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. ii)The respondents shall be entitled to proportionate costs of the references. iii)Appeals are partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. iv)Cross objections are dismissed with no order as to costs. v) Pending civil applications do not survive and the same are disposed of. JUDGE