1 fa1858-11j rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1858 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s. Dattu Goma Chimane (Since deceased through his LR's) Vatsalabai Dattu Chimane & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr A. R. Patil, AGP for the appellant – State. Mr. Sachin Punde for respondent Nos.1 to 5. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : OCTOBER 5, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Though the Appeal is numbered in the year 2011, the same has been filed in 2003 and hence the same is taken up for final disposal. The appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award passed by the trial Court under a reference made in a Section 28(A-3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 2. The acquisition relates to the lands at village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 3rd February, 1970 by which the lands were notified for the public purpose of setting up 2 fa1858-11j satellite city of Navi Mumbai. Award under Section 11 of the said Act was passed in the year 1985. On the basis of the Award made in LAR No.447 of 1986, the respondents applied for redetermination of the market value in accordance with Section 28(A)(1) of the said Act. The market value was redetermined at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre which was not accepted by the respondents and at their instance, the reference under Section 28(A-3) of the said Act was made. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metres. Apart from granting statutory benefits under Section 23(A-1), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act, the trial Court granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum under Section 34 of the said Act. 3. The learned AGP appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondents did not adduce evidence of any comparable sale instances and hence the market value fixed is on the higher side. He submitted that there was no occasion for the trial Court to invoke Section 34 of the said Act as the interest has been already granted under Section 28 of the said Act. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned Judgment and Award. On instructions he stated that the respondents do not desire to prefer any Cross Appeal or Cross Objection. 3 fa1858-11j 4. The acquisition relates to the lands at village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which were notified on 3rd February, 1970. Large number of Appeals arising out of the references under Section 18 of the said Act in respect of the lands at village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad notified for the same public purpose on the same date have been decided by this Court. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Prakash Vasudeo Devdhar [2008 (5) BCR 708], the Division Bench has fixed the market value of the lands depending upon the distance of the acquired lands from the Bombay Pune Highway. In case of lands which were far away from the Highway, the minimum market value of Rs.21/- per square metre has been fixed. The said decision has attained finality as appellant-State Government has not challenged the same. Hence, no fault can be found with the market value fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre. 5. Clause (7) of the operative part of Judgment reads thus: “7. The respondent is further directed to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. u/s. 34 from the date of taking possession till the amount is paid and if the compensation is not paid within a period of one year from the date of taking possession, the respondent shall pay the interest @ 15% p.a. till the amount is deposited u/s. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” 4 fa1858-11j 6. After granting interest of Section 28 of the said Act, there was no occasion by the trial Court to grant interest under Section 34 of the said Act as Section 34 was not at all applicable. Therefore, that part of the impugned Award will have to be quashed and set aside. 7. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. Clause (7) of the impugned Judgment and Award is quashed and set aside. Rest of the impugned Judgment and Award is confirmed. ii. Appeal is partly allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs. iii. Civil Application No.914 of 2004 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)