: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.7 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra Thru the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Konkan Railway Project, Mahad, Tal. Mahad, Dist. Raigad ..Appellant V/s. Umar Mahamood Karanjikar R/o. Roha, Tal.Roha, Dist. Raigad ..Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.8 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra Thru the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Konkan Railway Project, Pen, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad ..Appellant V/s. Roshan Dadamiya Darjik R/o. Roha, Tal.Roha, Dist. Raigad ..Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.9 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra Thru the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Konkan Railway Project, Pen, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad ..Appellant V/s. Suleman Hasanmiya Darji R/o. Roha, Tal.Roha, Dist. Raigad ..Respondent : 2 : WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.10 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra Thru the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Konkan Railway Project, Pen, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad ..Appellant V/s. Smt.Aishabibi Abubkar Yerunkar R/o. Roha, Tal.Roha, Dist. Raigad ..Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.12 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra Thru the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Konkan Railway Project, Pen, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad ..Appellant V/s. Madhav Laxman Luman R/o. Roha, Tal.Roha, Dist. Raigad ..Respondent WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.13 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra Thru the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Konkan Railway Project, Pen, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad ..Appellant V/s. Shaikh Adam Dawood Nurji R/o. Roha, Tal.Roha, Dist. Raigad ..Respondent : 3 : ..... Ms. S.P. Manchekar, AGP for the appellant-State Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for the respondent ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 3rd JULY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. All these first appeals can be disposed of by common judgment as the point involved therein is common. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Konkan Railway Project, Pen. Tal. Pen Dist. Raigad proceeded to acquire the suit lands situate at Village Ashtami, Tal. Roha Dist. Raigad by notification dated 29 th December, 1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the said Act). The lands came to be acquired and noting the fact that the inadequate compensation was granted to the respondents by the Land Acquisition Officer, the persons who lost the lands filed Land Acquisition Reference namely Reference No.600/87, 599/87, 601/87, 602/87, 603/97, 604/87 and 605/87 in the District Court, Raigad at Alibag. All these references were assigned to 4 th Addl. District Judge, Raigad at Alibag (hereinafter referred to as the said learned Judge). : 4 : He has decided those references by a common judgment dated 26 th March, 1992 and passed decrees accordingly. Said learned Judge fixed the market value of each of the land at the rate of Rs.11.00 per sq.meter. He granted compensation keeping in view the other provisions of the said Act. Judgment and decree dated 26 th March, 1992 delivered by the learned in each reference is challenged in the respective first appeal. Cross-objections have not been filed by any of the respondents. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mrs. Manchekar on behalf of the appellant State. Mr. Gorwadkar appeared on behalf of Respondents. It is seen that on behalf of the Respondents one person by name U.M. Dalvi was examined. He was one of the claimants and he was examined as a representative of all other claimants. The Respondents had also examined one Mr. Jeevan N. Kulkarni whose services were hired as a Surveyor. Said Jeevan Kulkarni PW-2 had given his report and the said report was relied upon by the Respondents before the said learned Judge. One person by name Saddulla was examined to quote the sale instance in regard to land admeasuring 42 gunthas, : 5 : western side of village Ashtami. One more person by name Jaywant Shirdhankar was also examined to bring on record another sale instance concerning the land admeasuring 33 gunthas which was situate on the western side of village Dhankadi. 3. No evidence was led on behalf of the State. 4. The impugned judgment delivered by the learned Judge speaks of two sales instance one pertaining to Survey No.25 H.1 situate at village Roha and rate at which the said land was sold in January, 1982 was Rs. 24.75 per sq.meter. The second sale instance pertains to land bearing Survey No.13(3) situate at village Ashtami and the rate is Rs.18.70 per sq. meter being sale deed of December, 1992. Said learned Judge has observed on the basis of record that some of the lands which have been acquired and which are concerned in these appeals were situate within the Municipal limits of Roha Nagar Parishad and some of the lands were abutting the Municipal limit of Roha and all of have N.A. potentiality. This aspect has undoubtedly considered by the said learned Judge for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation. The : 6 : learned Judge has also noted the observation of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by which the Special Land Acquisition Officer had noted that the lands in question have their own importance and instead of producing crops like paddy, they could have fetched more price being situated in a non agricultural area. Said Jeevan Kulkarni, the valuer has given evidence to say that all the lands are from village Ashtami, which is part and parcel of Roha Municipal Council and that village Ashtami is separated from Roha by river Kundalika and both the parts in the Municipal limits needed for the project were by connected the bridge on the road known as Roha-Nagothane State Highway. The learned Judge has on the basis of the evidence placed before him ultimately arrived at conclusion on the basis of the location and the topography of the lands and that the land has N.A. potentiality and that the said lands therefore be considered as N.A. lands for the purposes of arriving at valuation. The learned Judge treated them as non agricultural lands. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Manchekar submitted that the learned Judge gave importance to the word of valuer Jeevan Kulkarni more than necessary in as much as it : 7 : was necessary for the Respondents to bring proper evidence on record to qua each land. The learned advocate Ms. Manchekar had submitted that looking to the entire evidence placed before the Court, the learned Judge should have declined to grant grant compensation as demanded by the respondents. She pressed for dismissal of the first appeals. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Gorwardkar appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that fixing the valuation based on sale instances is well accepted method and if the respondents have been able to bring on record the sale instance of 31 st December, 1982 pertaining to the land situate in the village Ashtami, it was proer to refer to the said sale instance. He pointed out the notification under Section 4 of said Act for acquisition of lands in question was issued on 29.12.1983. He, therefore, submitted that the sale instance of December, 1982 quoting rate of Rs.18.70 was properly used. He also pointed out that the said sale instances pertained to an agricultural lands for which there is no direct access. He submitted that if rate for agricultural lands was fixed by parties in the said sale instance @Rs.18.70, certainly amount of : 8 : compensation for the lands which is situated in Ashtami Roah Municipal Councils limits and which is close the to Roha Nagitgabe State highway, at Rs.11/- per sq.meter was fair and just. Learned advocate Mr. Gorwadkar had also taken me through the entire record and had submitted that the learned Judge had arrived at right conclusion on the basis of material placed before him and that no interference is required in the impugned judgment. 6. I have considered the rival submissions. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that the lands are within the Municipal area of Roha Municipal Council and there is evidence on record to show that the said lands have N.A. potentiality though they may have not been specifically converted into Non- agricultural lands. In my view, this important factor was rightly considered by the learned Judge. 7. The learned Judge has placed reliance on the sale instance in regard to the property situate at village Ashtami as mentioned aforesaid. Considering the record as well as the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr.Gorwadkar, I am inclined to observe that : 9 : reliance placed on the sale instance dated 31 st December, 1982 is proper. If a land which is treated as agricultural land is being sold at Rs. 18.70 per sq.meter, certainly the land which is having N.A. potentiality and situate within the Municipal limits can fetch a sum of Rs.11/- per sq.meter. After having considered the entire evidence on record, I am inclined to observe that learned Judge has rightly arrived at conclusion and no interference is required in the impugned judgment. 8. In view of the above, I am inclined to observe that no interference is required in the impugned judgment in each of the case which has arisen in each of the first appeal. Even otherwise no arithmetical error was pointed out in the impugned judgment. Hence, the order. ORDER . Each first appeals is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)