: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.641 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.641 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.641 OF 1991 WITH WITH WITH CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.33199 OF 2000 CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.33199 OF 2000 CROSS OBJECTION (ST.) NO.33199 OF 2000 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4073 OF 2001 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4073 OF 2001 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4073 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra, . Thru’ The Special Land Acquisition . Officer, Metro Centre No.8, Panvel, . Dist. Raigad ...Appellant V/s. Kana Nagu Mhatre, Deceased, . Thru’ 1-a. Janu Kana Mhatre . 1-b. Maya Kana Mhatre . 1-c. Baban Kana Mhatre . 1-d. Gurunath Kana Mhatre . 1-e. Ambaji Kana Mhatre . All R/o. Dhakta Khanda, . Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad. . . 1-f. Mandabai Harishchandra Patil . R/o. Walawali, Tal.Panvel, . Dist. Raigad. ...Respondents Ms.G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for the Appellant-State. Mr.S.M. Kamble, Advocate, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT :- ORAL JUDGMENT :- ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned AGP for the appellant and Mr.Kamble for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this Appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 15th September, 1990 passed : 2 : by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Raigad at Alibag in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 3. The acquisition relates to land bearing Survey No.532, Hissa No.11 and Survey No.533, Hissa No.7 totally admeasuring 7590 sq.mtrs. situated at Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 3rd February, 1970 by which the land was notified for acquisition for public purpose of setting up of satellite city of Navi Mumbai. An Award was made under Section 11 of the said Act on 17th March, 1986. As the Award was not accepted by the original respondent, at his instance, a Reference under Section 18 has been made. The Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award, fixed the market value @ Rs.15/- per sq.mtr. and granted statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and (28) of the said Act to the original respondent. The claim of the respondent was @ Rs.45/- per sq.mtr. By Cross-Objection, the respondents are seeking further enhancement @ Rs.30/- per sq.mtr. 4. The submission of the learned AGP for the appellant is that the market value awarded by the : 3 : Reference Court is exorbitant and the same cannot be justified on the basis of evidence on record. Learned Advocate for the respondents has placed reliance on the various decisions of this Court and submitted that the Cross-Objection deserves to be allowed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. My attention has been invited to a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Name Padu Hudar and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra (First Appeal No.754 of 1986) with other connected First Appeals. The said group of Appeals was decided by a Division Bench of this Court [Coram : S.W. Puranik and D.J. Moharir, JJ] on 25th and 26th February, 1993. The Division Bench dealt with group of Appeals arising out of Awards under Section 18 of the said Act relating to large numbers of lands situated in Villages Panvel and Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which were notified under Section 4 of the said Act on 3rd February, 1970 for the public purpose of setting up of satellite city of Navi Mumbai. The Division Bench divided the lands into five different categories for the pruposes of fixing the market value. The division of lands subject matters of the Appeals before the Division Bench was made considering the distance of the acquired lands either from : 4 : Bombay-Pune National Highway or from the Zilla Parishad Road or Gaothan. The decision of the Division Bench has attained finality in the sense that no Appeal was preferred against the said Judgment. It must be also noted here that the said decision of the Division Bench has been expressely approved by the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 6th March, 2006 in Civil Appeal No.1557 of 2006 (Shantadevi H. Ruparel V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.). In fact the Apex Court directed that compensation shall be awarded to the land subject matter of the Appeal before it in terms of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). It is an admitted position that large tracts of lands situated at Villages Panvel, Kamothe, Taloja, Pendhar, Ulwe and other villages in Taluka Panvel of District Raigad were notified for acquisition by the same notification dated 3rd February, 1970 for the same public purpose. The lands in these villages which were subjected to acquisition were agricultural lands. 6. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra) will be certainly relevant for deciding the market value of the acquired land in the case in hand, as the said acquired land is situated at Panvel. The acquired : 5 : land was also acquired alongwith the lands subject matter of the Appeals before the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). It is, therefore, obvious that the market value in the present case will be governed by the said decision of the Division Bench. The categorization made by the Division Bench is as under:- ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted No. P.S.M. No. P.S.M. No. P.S.M. Rs.Ps. Rs.Ps. Rs.Ps. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ I. 754/1986 671 1(Part) 8240 25.00 Abutting the Highway 763/1986 694 2 5870 25.00 698 2 510 25.00 704 7 1060 25.00 704 2 3310 25.00 II. 751/1986 598 2/5 4270 23.00 Within (Part) 800 Metres 756/1986 665 1B 2450 23.00 665 1D 1800 23.00 663 1/5 1340 23.00 660 3 5830 23.00 : 6 : III. 753/1986 614 2 3100 22.00 Abutting 751/1986 617 2 4350 22.00 Kamothe Z.P. (Part) Road to 1200 Metres 752/1986 548 7(Part) 2500 22.00 IV-A 755/1986 209 9 4560 20.00 800 Mtrs.to 2200 Mtrs. 213 10 1900 20.00 from Bombay- Poona Highway IV-B 200 Mtrs. from Z.P. Rd. 743/1986 240 2 1900 20.00 & Gaothan to 640 Mtrs. from Z.P. Rd. 274 2 4760 20.00 & Gaothan ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ 7. In support of the claim, the original claimant examined himself. He also examined Mr.Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni, a valuer. The valuation report prepared by Mr.Kulkarni was placed on record and the same was duly proved. In the said report, it was disclosed that the : 7 : distance of the acquired land from the said highway was about 960 mtrs. There is no serious challenge to the said report of Mr.Kulkarni on this aspect. In the cross-examination, Mr.Kulkarni has reiterated that the acquired land is at the distance of 960 mtrs. from the highway. 8. Hence the acquired land will fall in category IV-A as fixed by the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). Thus, the Appeal must fail and Cross-Objection must succeed to the aforesaid extent. In this case there is no dispute regarding grant of statutory benefits. Hence, I pass the following order:- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" (a). First Appeal No.641 of 1991 is dismissed. The appellant will pay costs of the Appeal to the respondents. (b). Cross Objections (St.) No.33199 of 2000 is partly allowed. (c). The impugned Judgment and Award dated 15th September, 1990 is modified and it is : 8 : held that the claimants will be entitled to market value @ Rs.20/- per sq.mtr. The claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Reference. (c). The learned Trial Judge will complete the exercise of calculating the compensation payable to the claimants within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this Judgment. (d). The claimants-respondents will be entitled to proportionate costs of Cross-Objection from the appellant. (e). Writ to be sent down immediately. (f). Civil Application No.4073 of 2001 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]