1 fa448 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.448 OF 1993 WITH CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.10621 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. Mahammed Hanif (since deceased through L.Rs.) 1 Noorja Bibi wd/o Mohammed Hanif Bubere 2 Mohammed Rafique S/o Mohammed Hanif Bubere 3 Ms Halimabai w/o Abdul Gani Patel 4 Sabira w/o Zakariya Patel 5 Shahnaz w/o Mansoor Patel 6 Amjad s/o Mohammed Hanif Bubere 7 Imran s/o Mohammed Hanif Bubere ...Respondents Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the appellant None for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 5,2011 ORAL JUDGEMENT: 1 The Appellant-State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 4 th May 1991 passed by the Reference Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2 The acquisition is in respect of various land at village Owe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The area of the acquired land is 13,800 sq. meters. The Award under section 11 of the said Act was made on 15 th June 1986. As the respondent did not accept the Award, reference under section 18 of the said Act was made by which the market value was claimed at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. meter. 3 By the impugned Judgment and Award, market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. meter. In 2 fa448 addition, statutory benefits under sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act have been granted. The respondent-claimant has filed cross objection claiming market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. meter. 4 The learned A.G.P for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence adduced by the respondent of the comparable sale instances and the burden on the respondent has not been discharged to show that the market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. None appears for the legal representatives of the original respondent. 5 I have considered the submissions. The acquired land was notified under section 4 (1) of the said Act on 3rd February 1970. The acquisition was for the purpose of setting up satellite city of New Bombay. It is not in dispute that large number of lands situated in various villages of Taluka Panvel, District Raigad were notified on the same date for the same public purpose. In First Appeal no.875 of 1985 (Abdul Aziz Husen Miya vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer) and other connected appeals decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 16 th March 2000, this Court dealt with the appeals arising out of references under section 18 of the said Act relating to lands at villages Pendhar, Taloja and Owe and other villages. In paragraph 10 of the said decision, the Division Bench has fixed the market value of the lands at village Owe which were situated far away from Bombay Pune National Highway. The Division Bench fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.13/- per sq. meter. There is nothing on record to show that the acquired lands were better located than the lands dealt with by the Division Bench. The Division Bench made deduction of 10% on account of development charges. Hence, the market value 3 fa448 will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.11.70/- Hence, Appeal must fail and the cross objection must succeed in part. 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i) First Appeal no.448 of 1993 is dismissed with no order as to costs. ii)Cross objection st.no.10621 of 2000 is partly allowed. iii)The market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.11.70 per sq. meter (inclusive of the market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer). iv)The respondents will be entitled to statutory benefits under sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act. v) The respondents will be entitled to proportionate costs of the reference as well as cross objection. vi)Exercise of determining the compensation payable as per the modified Award shall be completed by the Trial Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ of this Judgment. vii)Excess amount shall be deposited within a period of three months from the date of determination of the compensation as per the modified Award. viii)Civil Application No.3915 of 1993 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE