1 FH FA.1068.00 ORS ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1068 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Dattu Goma Tambade and others. ... Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1069 OF 2000 WITH CROSS OBJECTION (stamp) NO. 27571 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Dharma Atmaram Patil. ... Respondent ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1070 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Raghunath Ganpat Mhatre and others. ... Respondents 2 FH FA.1068.00 ORS ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1071 OF 2000 WITH CROSS OBJECTION (stamp) NO. 28444 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Narayan Balu Patil. ... Respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1072 OF 2000 WITH CROSS OBJECTION (stamp) NO. 1429 OF 2005 WITH CROSS OBJECTION (stamp) NO. 5390 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant Versus Govind Balu Patil and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for the Appellant – State. Mr. R.S.Ghadge for the Respondent in FA No.1069 of 2000, FA No.1071 of 2000 and for Respondent No.1a in FA No.1072 of 2000. Mr. Rajiv Patil for Respondent No.2 in FA No.1072 of 2000. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18 th February, 2011. 3 FH FA.1068.00 ORS ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 These appeals and cross objections can be disposed of by a common judgment. The challenge in these appeals is to the awards under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The acquisition is in respect of the lands at village Kharghar, Taluka and Panvel, District Raigad, which were notified under Section 4(1) of the said Act on 3 rd February, 1970 for the public purposes of setting up the satellite city of New Bombay. The awards were made in the year 1985 under Section 11 of the said Act. The Respondents in these appeals did not seek reference under Section 18, but on the basis of the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference No.219 of 1986, they sought re-determination of compensation by invoking Section 28 (A) of the said Act. As the Respondents did not accept re- determination made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, at their instance, a reference was made under Section 28(A-3) of the said Act. By the impugned judgments and awards except the award which is subject matter of First Appeal no.1072 of 2000, market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.12/- per square meter. By the award subject matter 4 FH FA.1068.00 ORS of challenge in First Appeal no.1072 of 2000, the market value at the rate of Rs.10/- has been fixed. There are cross objections filed in First Appeal nos. 1069, 1071 and 1072 of 2000. By the Cross objections, the Claimants are claiming market value at the rates between Rs.20/- and 25/- per square meter. 2 The submission of the learned AGP appearing for the State is that there was no evidence adduced of the comparable sale instances by the Respondents – claimants. He submitted that in support of their application under Section 28 (A), there was no material placed on record by the Respondents. Even in references under Section 28(A-3), no evidence of comparable sale instances was adduced. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents–claimants have relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 875 of 1985 (Abdul Aziz Husenmiya Patel Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer) and other connected matters. The Division Bench decided a group of appeals by judgment and order dated 16 th March, 2000. The Division Bench dealt with the appeals arising out of references under Section 18 5 FH FA.1068.00 ORS of the said Act relating to lands at villages Pendhar, Taloja, Panchand, Owe, Belpada and Kharghar in Taluka Panvel District Raidad , which were notified on 3 rd February, 1970 for the public purpose of setting up satellite city of New Bombay. Their contention is that, in view of the said decision, market value as prayed in cross objections will have to be allowed. 3 I have given careful considerations to the submissions. It is not in dispute that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 875 of 1985 and other connected appeals has not been challenged by the State Government. The Division Bench while dealing with the question of determination of the market value of the acquired lands at village Kharghar notified on the same day for the same public purpose held that in case of lands which were abutting Sion-Panvel highway, the market value will be at the rate of Rs.22/- per square meter. In case of lands which were away from Sion-Panvel highway and Taloja Industrial Estate, market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.18/- per square meter. 6 FH FA.1068.00 ORS 4 Therefore, this Court will be guided by the decision of the Division Bench. By the impugned awards, market value has been fixed at the rates lower than the minimum market value fixed by the Division Bench. As far as First Appeal Nos.1069,1071 and 1072 of 2000 are concerned, the evidence on record shows that the lands were not abutting Sion-Panvel highway. The Taloja Industrial Estate is situated at some distance of the acquired lands. Therefore, the acquired lands subject matter of the above three appeals fall in second category of lands in the case of Abdul Aziz Husenmiya Patel (supra). Hence ,the market value will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.18/-per square meter. 5 Hence, I pass the following order: i. First Appeal Nos.1068, 1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 of 2000 are dismissed with no order as to costs ; ii. Cross Objection stamp No.27571 of 2002 (Land Acquisition Reference No. 29 of 1993), Cross 7 FH FA.1068.00 ORS Objection stamp No.28444 of 2002 (Land Acquisition Reference No. 25 of 1994) and Cross Objection stamp No.1429 of 2005 and Cross Objection stamp No.5390 of 2008 (both in Land Acquisition Reference No. 27 of 1993) are partly allowed and the market value of the acquired lands is fixed at the rate of Rs.18/- per square meter. In addition to the market value, the claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the said Act. The claimants will be entitled to proportionate the costs of references as well as the cross objections ; iii. In the aforesaid cases where cross objections have been allowed, the Reference Court shall complete exercise of determining the compensation payable in accordance with the 8 FH FA.1068.00 ORS modified award within a period of three months from the date on which writ of this judgment is received by the said Court. The excess compensation shall be deposited by the State Government within a period of three months from the date on which determination of the amount is made. [ A.S.OKA, J ]