1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2397 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4294 OF 2008 State of Maharashtra ........Appellant versus Kashinath Dharma Patil & ors........ Respondents. Mrs. S.V. Gajare AGP adv. for the Appellant Mr. V.S. Khanankar adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 16th FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. By consent of parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. This is an appeal filed by the State Government impugning the award passed by the Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act. The award involves four pieces of lands. It is undisputed that the lands are from village Pendhar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.22.5 per sq. mtre. Whereas it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the rate ought to have been Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. The learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Nama Padu Hudar Vs. State of Maharashtra in F.A. No.754/87 and other connected matters. Perusal of the said judgment 2 reveals that this court has classified the lands into various groups depending upon their distance from the national highway. The first group of land is abutting to national highway and the compensation to this group has been awarded at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. The second group is the land situated within the distance of 800 mtres from the highway and the compensation to this group has been awarded at the rate of Rs.23/-. The third group is the land situated within the distance of 1200 mtres and the compensation to this group has been awarded at the rate of Rs.22/-. The next group is group IV-A, where the land fall within the distance of 2200 mtrs., the compensation to this group has been awarded at the rate of Rs.20/-. In the present case the concerned lands are situated at different places. Three pieces of the lands are at the distance of about 1000 mtres and one piece of land is situated at a distance of 1800 mtrs. If that be so, according to the judgment relied upon by the the learned counsel for the appellant, the farthest land ought to be paid Rs. 20/- per sq. mtre. Whereas the Reference Court has awarded Rs.19/- per sq. mtr. In regard to the other three lands the compensation has granted at the rate of Rs.22.5 per sq. mtr. whereas according to the said judgment it ought to be Rs.22/-. So it is clear that in regard to three pieces of lands compensation is paid more by 50 paise per sq. mtr., whereas in regard to one land it is paid less by rupee one per sq. mtr. If the test laid down in the judgment of Nama Padu Hudar's case is 3 applied, then it is obvious that by and large similar rate is granted which is fixed in the said appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of F.A. 875/85 in case of Abdul Vs. State Land Acquisition Officer and other connected matters so also in F.A. no. 950/85 to contend that the rate ought to be Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. No appeal has been preferred by the respondents and the respondents have accepted the award passed by the Reference Court is a statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned award as the compensation has been granted in the same range that has been granted in the judgment relied upon by the appellant. The only difference is in regard to one piece of land, Rs. One has been granted less whereas in regard to other pieces of land compensation is granted more at the rate of 0.5 per sq. mtr. The market value cannot be determined with mathematical acurancy. Hence there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award. Appeal thus stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. 3. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)