1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURSIDICTION APPEAL NO.780 OF 2006 IN LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2000 The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply ] Transport Undertaking, ] Appellant BEST Bhavan, BEST Marg, ] (Acquiring Post Box No.192 ] body) Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (2) ] Mumbai & Suburban District, ] Administrative Building, 9th Floor, ] Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051 ] ] Respondents Rajesh U. Shah ] (Original Constituted Attorney of Bhiva Gopal ] claimants) Keni, 25/5 Kanak Kunj, ] Sewri Wadala Cross Road, ] Kings Circle, Matunga, Mumbai - 400 019 ] Mr.V.J. Makhija with Mr. S.K. Chori i/by M.V. Kini & Co. for appellant. Mr. C.M. Korde, Senior Counsel i/by Vasant Dhavan for respondent no.2. Coram : D.K. Deshmukh & Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, JJ. Date : 15th June 2010. P.C.: : 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 1st February 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Land Acquisition Reference No.5 of 2000. 2 2. The land at CTS No.258 (part), 260 (part) and 261 (part) belonging to the claimants was acquired for the appellant. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) valued the land based on the ready reckoner for the year 1996 and fixed the value of the land at 60 percent of the rate given in the ready reckoner. As such the land bearing CTS No.260 (part) and 261 (part) were valued at Rs.4,068/- per square meter. However, the land at CTS No.258 (part) though contiguous with other two was valued at 30 percent of the rate given in the ready reckoner i.e. at Rs.2,034/- per square meter on the ground that it was landlocked. Thereafter claimant filed reference for limited purpose to challenge the valuation of CTS No.258 (part). According to him, SLAO was not correct in valuing the land at CTS no.258 (part) at a rate lower than the other two pieces of land on the ground that it does not have direct access to the linking road. It was contended on behalf of the claimant in the reference that all the three pieces of land being contiguous and belonging to the same owner, the property could have been developed as one piece of land without any reduction to its value and therefore, the SLAO ought to ’ have valued all the three pieces of land at the same rate. This contention was accepted by the learned Single Judge and the reference allowed directing the SLAO to value the land at CTS No.258 3 (part) at the same rate as 4,068/- per square meter and pay the compensation accordingly. 3. Mr. Makhija, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, relying upon a decision dated 19/20th September 2005 of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions No.2687 of 1999 and 1392 of 1999 submits that valuation of the land on the basis of the ready reckoner alone is not correct. He also seeks to justify the reduced compensation awarded to CTS No.258 (part). 4. The learned Single Judge found that the SLAO has not based valuation of the land on ready reckoner alone. He had also taken into consideration the awards made in favour of three adjoining pieces of land of compensation at the same rate i.e. Rs.4,068/- per square meter. These awards having been accepted and fully acted upon by the appellant became final and could be considered as instances. The learned Single Judge also noted that the judgment of the Division Bench relied upon by the appellant which was also cited before the learned Single Judge indicates that the ready reckoner would be relevant criteria in cases of acquisition made after the year 1995, though the same could not form exclusive basis for the valuation. We are inclined to agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge on this aspect. We also note that the valuation 4 stated in the ready reckoner has not been accepted by the SLAO as it is. 5. As regards the distinction made by SLAO between the land at CTS 258 (part) and the land at CTS 260 (part) and 261 (part), the learned Single Judge has disapproved the same. The learned Single Judge has held that the land bearing these survey numbers being contiguous pieces of land owned by the same land-holder, they ought to have been treated as one for the purposes of valuation. The Valuer examined by the claimants deposed that if the entire land was used to its full potential with the FSI, a building could be erected on the same in consonance with the Development Rules and other laws in force in respect of construction. Further the land at CTS no.258 (part) having no access, other than through CTS Nos.260 (part) and 261 (part), the claimants would have had to sell the land along with other two pieces of land as one holding and therefore, the market price of all three plots would have to be treated to be the same. We find no infirmity whatsoever with the reasoning and are inclined to agree with the same. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. The appellant has already deposited the amount awarded pursuant to the impugned judgment and order along with interest in the court. 5 The respondent-claimant is at liberty to withdraw the amount of award together with the accruals thereon, if any, on expiry of period of eight weeks from today. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.) (D.K. Deshmukh, J.)