1 fa387-92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO. 387 OF 1992 ALONGWITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 4218 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ] (Through the Special Land ] .. Applicant Acquisiton Officer, Metro ] (Original Opponent/ Centre No.1, Panvel. ] Claimant) Janu Halya Bhingarkar @ Govari ] (Since deceased through his LR's) ] 1) Changubai Janu Bhingarkar @ Govari ] (Since deceased through her LR's) ] 2) Chaya Janu Bhingarkar @ Govari ] (Since deceased through her LR's) ] 2A)Kalabai Chaya Bhingarkar & Govari ] Age – 65 years, Occupation-Housewife, ] Residing at Kamothe, Tal.-Panvel ] District – Raigad. ] 2.B) Kamala Ashok Patil ] Age – 25 years, Occupation-Housewife ] Residing at Wagilwada, Tal.-Panvel, ] District – Raigad. ] 3. Ragho Janu Bhingarkar @ Govari ] Age – 61 years, Occu.-Agriculturist, ] Residing at Kamotha, Tal.-Panve, ] District – Raigad. ] 4. Sita Dattatrya Patil, ] Age – 49 years, Occu.-Housewife, ] Residing at Mothakhanda, Tal.-Panvel, ] 2 fa387-92 District – Raigad. ] 5. Anandi Ananta Mundakar, ] Age – 45 years, Occu.-Housewife, ] Residing at Kamotha, Tal.-Panvel, ] District – Raigad. ] 6. Surekha Kamalakar Mundakar, ] Age – 42 years, occu.- Housewife, ] Residinga at Kamotha, Tal.-Panvel, ] District - Raigad. ] 7. Balkrishna Janu Bhingarkar @ Govari, ] Age – 35 years, Occu.-Agriculturist, ] .. Respondents Residing at Kamotha, Tal.-Panvel, ] (Original Claimants) District – Raigad. ] .... Mr. Sachin Punde for the appellants. Mr. A.R. Patil, AGP for respondent-State. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 15, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- By this Appeal, the State Government has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 25th June, 1991, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Raigad Alibag, by which a Reference made at the instance of the Respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to the “said Act”) was partly allowed. 3 fa387-92 2. The land admeasuring 7070 square meters situated at village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad is the subject matter of the acquisition which was notified under Section 4 of the said Act on 3rd February, 1970, for the public purpose for setting up the satellite city of New Bombay. By the impugned Award, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.14/- per square meter. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the State Government is that the Respondents-Claimants have not adduced any evidence of comparable sale instances and as they have failed to discharge the burden, the Respondents were not entitled to claim any enhancement. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents in support of the Cross Objection placed reliance of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12th June, 2008 in First Appeal No. 604 of 1995 and other connected Appeals. He submitted that the present Appeal is covered by the said decision. 4. I have given careful consideration of the submissions. Large number of lands in villages Panvel and Kamothe in Taluka Panvel District Raigad were notified for acquisition on 3rd February, 1970 4 fa387-92 for the same public purpose. This Court in the case of Nama Pandu Hudar & Others V/s. State of Maharashtra (First Appeal No. 754 of 1986) alonwith connected Appeals, decided on 25th/26th February, 1993, adopted belting method for fixing the market value of the acquired lands in villages Kamothe and Panvel on the basis of its distance from the Bombay-Pune National Highway. The method adopted by this Court has been approved by the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Dhavaji Naik [(2009) 11 SCC 171]. In First Appeal No.604 of 1995 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 12th June, 2008, this Court is relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Nama Pandu Hudar & Ors. (Supra). This Court held that in case of lands situated beyond 1500 meters from the National Highway, the market value of the lands will be Rs. 21/- per square meter. The said decision has become final. In the present case, the Respondents-Claimants examined Mr. Jeevan N. Kulkarni, an Expert Valuer. In his evidence, his report has been admitted in evidence. The report shows that the acquired land was at the distance of 1760 meters from the National Highway. There is no challenge to this aspect of the report in the cross examination of Mr. Kulkarni. Following the decision of the Division Bench in First Appeal No.604 of 1995, the market value 5 fa387-92 of the acquired land will have to be fixed at Rs.21/- per square meter. 5. Hence, I pass the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. First Appeal No. 387 of 1992 is dismissed with no order as to costs. ii. Cross objection Stamp No.4128 of 2011 is partly allowed. iii. The impugned Judgment and Award is modified by directing that the Respondents-Claimants will be entitled to the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.21/- per square meter inclusive of market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. iv. The Claimants will be entitled to statutory 6 fa387-92 benefits under Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. v. The Claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Reference and the Cross objections. vi. The exercise of determining the compensation payable as per the modified Award shall be completed by the Reference Court within a period of three months from the date on which writ of this Judgment is received by this Court. vii. The excess amount shall be deposited by the State Government with the Trial Court within a period of twelve weeks from which the compensation amount is determined. JUDGE