IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.1058 OF 1992 APPEAL NO.1058 OF 1992 APPEAL NO.1058 OF 1992 WITH WITH WITH CROSS-OBJECTION CROSS-OBJECTION CROSS-OBJECTION (ST) NO.7589 OF 1993. (ST) NO.7589 OF 1993. (ST) NO.7589 OF 1993. The State of Maharashtra, ) through The Special Land Acquisition ) Officer, Metro Centre No.1, Panvel. )...Appellant Versus. Ragho Janu Chimane & others )...Respondent --- Mrs Geeta P. Mulekar, A.G.P for the Appellant. Shri Rajesh Parab with Shri D.S.Sawant for the Respondent. --- CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 03rd April, 2008. : 03rd April, 2008. : 03rd April, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. On 12th March, 2008 the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties were heard and the judgment was reserved. Today the appeal is kept for dictation of judgment. 2. The appellant-State of Maharashtra by preferring this appeal has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 04th October, 1991 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Alibag, District Raigad in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. The acquisition relates to a land bearing survey : 2 : 2 : 2 : No.252, Hissa No.8 admeasuring 1080 sq meters situated at village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The said land was notified for acquisition by a notification dated 03rd February, 1970 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The acquisition was for the public purpose of setting up of satellite city of Navi Mumbai. As the respondents did not accept the award made under section 11 of the said Act, a reference was made at the instance of the respondents under section 18 of the said Act. The claim made by the respondents in the reference for market value was at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq meter. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.14/- per sq meter. By preferring the appeal the appellant-State of Maharashtra is seeking to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award. There is a cross-objection filed by the respondents seeking enhancement in market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq meter. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence adduced of the comparable sale instances by the respondents for discharging the burden upon them. She submitted that there was no material on record to fix the market value at the rate of Rs.14/- per sq meter. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents : 3 : 3 : 3 : placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench (Coram: Puranik and Moharir, JJ) dated 25th and 26th February, 1993 in First Appeal No.754 of 1986 (Nama Padu Hudar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra) and other connected first appeals. It is submitted that the present appeal will be governed by the said decision in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). He also placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 28th April, 2006 in First Appeal No.694 of 1989 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Sau Kumudini Narayan Rajwade) and other connected first appeals. In particular he relied upon the decision in the said judgment dated 28th April, 2006 relating to First Appeal No.1057 of 1989. He also invited my attention to the judgment and order dated 27th April, 2006 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.697 of 1989. He submitted that the cross-objection be allowed. 5. I have considered the submission. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Nama Padu Hudar Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). The Division Bench dealt with the appeals arising out of references under section 18 of the said Act relating to the lands from villages Panvel and Kamothe of Taluka Panvel, District Raigad where the lands were acquired under the notification dated 03rd February, 1970 under section 4 of the said Act for the same public purpose. : 4 : 4 : 4 : 6. After considering the location of various lands and the nature of the lands, the Division Bench divided the acquired lands in five categories depending upon its distance from Bombay-Pune National Highway and Zilla Parishad Road. The Division Bench has fixed different market value for the lands falling in the said five categories. The Apex Court by its decision dated 06th March, 2006 in Civil Appeal No.1557 of 2006 (Shantadevi Ruparel Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer) expressly approved the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court and directed to pay compensation as per the rates fixed in case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). There is no reason why the decision of Division Bench of this Court should not be followed in the present case. As the said decision of the Division Bench has attained finality, this case will have to be decided in terms of the said decision. 7. The Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra) held that market value of the lands at village Kamothe situated abutting the Bombay-Pune National Highway was Rs.25/- per sq meter. In case of lands which were situated at the distance of 800 to 2200 meters from the National Highway, the Division Bench fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq meter. : 5 : 5 : 5 : 8. In the group of first appeals decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 28th April, 2006 this Court was dealing with the appeals arising out of awards made under section 18 of the said Act which related to lands situated at village Kamothe which were notified under the same notification for the same public purpose. In First Appeal No.1057 of 1989 which was decided by the aforesaid judgment and order, the acquired land situated at village Kamothe was at a distance of 3220 meters. Following the principles laid down in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra) this Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.18-/- per sq meter in respect of the said land which was situated at a distance of 3220 meter from the highway. Similarly, in First Appeal No.1084 of 1989 which was part of the same group decided by the aforesaid judgment, the acquired land was situated at a distance of 3440 meters from the Bombay-Pune National Highway. Even in said case this Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.18/- per sq meters on the basis of the decision in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). 9. Turning to the facts of the present case, the respondents-claimants examined Shri Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni, a valuer as an expert witness. In his evidence, the valuation report prepared by him was proved. The said valuation report at Exhibit 26 : 6 : 6 : 6 : discloses that the distance of land subject matter of this appeal from the said highway was about 3200 meters. There is no challenge to the said statement made in the report in the cross-examination of Shri Kulkarni. Thus, the acquired land was situated at a distance of 3200 meters from the Bombay-Pune National Highway. Therefore, following the decision of this Court dated 28th April, 2006 the market value will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.18/- per sq meter. The award under section 11 of the said Act was made after 30th April, 1982 and hence there is no dispute regarding grant of statutory benefits. 10. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) First Appeal No.1058 of 1992 is dismissed with no orders as to costs. (ii) Cross-objection (St) No.7589 of 1993 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 04th October, 1991 is modified by holding that the respondents-claimants will be entitled to market value at the rate of Rs.18/- per sq meter. In addition to the said market value, the respondents-claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits under section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land : 7 : 7 : 7 : Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents-claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs of the reference as well as cross-objections from the appellant. (iii) The exercise of calculating the compensation payable under the modified award shall be completed by the learned trial Judge within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. (iv) Writ and Record and Proceeding to be sent down early. Judge. Judge. Judge.