: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.500 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.500 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.500 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant. (Original Opponent) V/s. Shri Sadanand Krishna Patil residing at Village Ghansoli, Taluka and District Thane ... Respondent. (Orig.Claimant) Shri A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for the State. Shri K.N.Kore, adv. for the Respondent. WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.501 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.501 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.501 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra Through (The Special Land Acquisition Officer Metro Centre No.1, Thane. ... Appellant. (Original Opponent) V/s. Gajanan Bama Madhavi residing at Ghansoli, Taluka and District Thane ... Respondent. (Original Claimant). Shri A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for the State. Respondent served personally. WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra, (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.1, Thane.) ...Appellant. (Original Opponent) V/s. Krishna Milu Patil residing at Ghansoli, Taluka and District Thane ...Respondent. (Original Claimant). Shri A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for the State. Shri K.N.Kore, Adv. for the Respondent. : 2 : WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.503 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.503 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.503 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra, (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.1, Thane.) ...Appellant. (Original Opponent). V/s. Shri Kamalakar Namdeo Mukadam residing at Koparkhairane, Taluka and District Thane ...Respondent (Original Claimant). Shri A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for the State. Shri K.N.Kore, adv. for the Respondent. WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.504 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.504 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.504 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.1, Thane.) ... Appellant (Original Opponent). V/s. 1. Shri Balu Joma Patil, 2. Shri Dagadu Balu Patil, residing at Ghansoli, Taluka and District Thane. ... Respondents. (Original Claimants) Shri A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for the State. Shri K.N.Kore, Adv. for the Respondent. WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.505 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.505 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.505 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant. (Through the Special Land Acquisition (Original Opponent) Officer, Metro Centre No.1, Thane.) V/s. 1. Shri Pandurang Kana Patil 2. Shri Vishnu Kana Patil 3. Shri Babulnath Kana Patil All agriculturists, residing at Village Ghansoli, Taluka and District Thane. .. Respondents. : 3 : (Original Claimants) Shri A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for the State. Shri K.N.Kore, adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.506 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.506 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.506 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra, (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.1, Thane.) ...Appellant. (Original Opponent) V/s. 1. Shri Chahu Kana Patil, 2. Shri Narayan Keshav Patil, 3. Smt. Janabai Keshav Patil, 4. Shri Harischandra Keshav Patil. All residing at Ghansoli, Taluka and District Thane ...Respondents. (Original Claimants). Shri A.R.Patil, A.G.P. for the State. Shri K.N.Kore, adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 21st December, 2005. : 21st December, 2005. : 21st December, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. All these Appeals are filed by the state of Maharashtra and challenged the common judgment dated 25th September, 1991 passed by the Joint District Judge, Thane in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.57 of 1988, 75 of 1988, 145 of 1988, 134 of 1987, 52 of 1988, 116 of 1988 and 56 of 1988 enhancing the compensation, after considering the material on record, at the rate of Rs.10/- per square metre. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, these : 4 : appeals are preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the order of enhanced compensation. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Both the parties fairly pointed out the judgment passed by this Court in identically placed and situated land acquisition references arising out of same dispute and of adjacent villages, whereby the judgment dated 26th October, 2005 passed by Shri D.G.Deshpande, J. in First Appeal No.813 of 1993 and Others, it has been observed as under: 3. "So far as all the appeals are concerned, they are arising out of land acquisition proceedings from village Kopar Khairane. The reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. in all these cases for the acquired lands. Many matters from village Kopar Khairane were decided by this Court and Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. is the proper rate of compensation, even the case of enhancement is made out. Therefore, there is no substance in all these appeals. Hence all the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs in : 5 : all the appeals". The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents pointed out and it is not disputed by the learned Advocates for the Appellant that the village Ghansoli which is in Taluka and District Thane is adjacent to the village Kopar Khairane which is in Taluka and District Thane. One of the Land Reference Nos.134 of 1987 which is in the matter of First Appeal No.500 of 1992, land is situated in Kopar Khairane, Taluka and District: Thane. Taking note of all these factors as there is no reason now to disturb the findings arrived at by the learned Judge. In view of this, as a whole, enhanced compensation as awarded is just and fair and with view of the above compensation, all these Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. 3. Certified copy is expedited. (ANOOP.V.MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP.V.MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP.V.MOHTA,J.)