1 fa570with x obj ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.570 OF 1994 WITH CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.7509 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre no.1,Panvel Dist.Raigad ...Appellant vs. 1 Hiru Chandar Mhatre (since deceased through L.Rs) 1A Smt.Krishnabai Hiru Mhatre 1B Smt.Prabhavati Balaram Bhoir 1C Smt.Jayavanti Nana Patil 1D Prakash Hiru Mhatre 1E Smt.Nanda Haresh Patil 1F Suryakant Hiru Mhatre 1G Chandrakant Hiru Mhatre 2 Nagu Chandar Mhatre 3 Bayobai Chandar Mhatre 4 Smt.Hendarbai Chandar Mhatre ...Respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 18,2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 The appellant State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 3 rd October 1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) made at the instance of the respondent. Acquired land is survey no.541 Hissa No.8 within the municipal limits of Panvel in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The area of the acquired land is 1540 sq. meters. The land was notified under section 4 of the said Act on 4 th February 1970 for the purpose of setting up satellite city of Navi Mumbai. 2 fa570with x obj The Award under section 11 of the said Act was made on 24 th October 1985 by which market value at the rate of Rs.1.50 per sq. meter was offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. At the instance of the respondents, reference was made under section 18 of the said Act. By the impugned Judgment and Award, market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. meter. In addition to the market value, statutory benefits have been granted to the respondents. By the cross objection, the respondents are claiming market value at the rate of Rs. 13/- per sq. meter. 2 The submission of the learned A.G.P for the appellant is that the respondents have not adduced any evidence of comparable sales and there is no justification for fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. meter. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar (2008 (5) Bombay Cases reporter page 708] and another decision in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Parvatibai Vithal Hudar [2008 (5) Bombay Cases Reporter 334]. He submitted that as the acquired land was at the distance of 1400 meters from the Bombay Pune national highway, in terms of the aforesaid decision, market value will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq. meter. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that large tracts of lands in various villages of Taluka Panvel District Raigad were notified on 3 rd February 1970 for acquisition for the purpose of setting up satellite city of Navi Mumbai. 3 fa570with x obj 4 In the case of Nama Padu Hudar [(1993) 3 Bombay Cases Reporter page 54] this Court dealt with the acquisition of lands at villages Kamothe and Panvel in Taluka Panvel District Raigad which were notified on the same date. Depending upon the distance of acquired land from the Bombay Pune national highway, the market value was fixed by the Division Bench of this Court. The method adopted by this Court in case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra) was expressly approved by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 6th March 2006 in Civil Appeal No.1550 of 2006 in case of Shantadevi Ruparel Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer. Relying upon the said decision in case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar (supra) and State of Maharashtra vs. Parvatibai Vithal Hudar (supra) held that the lands in the said villages falling within the distance of 750 meters to 1500 meters from the national highway will fetch the market value of Rs.23/- per sq. meter. 5 In the present case, the respondent examined Mr.Manohar Gopal Vaidya Valuer as an expert valuer. The report submitted by the valuer was exhibited which is at Exh.23. The report records that the distance of the acquired land from the said highway is 1400 meter. Though the report of the valuer was exhibited in his evidence, there is no cross examination made on the aspect of the distance from the highway. Thus, in view of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar (supra), the respondents will be entitled to market value at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq. meter. The Division Bench has not made any deduction on account of development charges. Hence, appeal must fail and the cross objection must succeed. 4 fa570with x obj 6 Hence, I pass the following order : i) First Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ii)Cross Objection st.no.7509 of 1995 is partly allowed. iii)The respondents/claimants will be entitled to total market value of Rs.23/- per sq. meter (inclusive of the market value awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer) together with statutory benefits under sections 23-(1A) and 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. iv)The respondents will be entitled to proportionate costs of the reference and the cross objection. v) The reference Court shall complete the exercise of computing compensation as per the modified Award within a period of three months from the date on which writ of this Judgment is received by the said Court. vi)The appellant shall deposit additional compensation within a period of three months from the date on which compensation amount is determined. JUDGE 5 fa570with x obj