1 fa961-92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO. 961 OF 1992 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5570 OF 1992 State of Maharashtra .. Appellants V/s M/s. Siemens India .. Respondents .... Mr. A.A.Patil, A.G.P. for the appellants. Mr. Jagdish Choudhary a/w. Mr. Manish Gite i/b. M/s. Nankani & Associates for respondents. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2011. JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellant-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Joint District Judge in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The Acquisition is in respect of land admeasuring 49181 square meters situated at 2 fa961-92 village Rabale in Taluka and District Thane. Notification dated 3rd February,1970, under section 4 of the said Act was published on 4th February, 1970. The land was notified for public purpose of establishing a satellite city of New Bombay. On 3rd June, 1996, Award was made under Section 11 of the said Act, by the Special Land Acquisition Officer offering market value of the acquired land at Rs. 5.40 and Rs. 3.60 per square meter. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Reference Court held that the respondents-claimant were entitled to market value at the rate of Rs.10/- per square meter. 3. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the appellants submitted that burden of proving that the market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate was on the respondent-claimant and that the respondent has failed to adduce evidence of any comparable sale instances. He, therefore, submitted that the market value fixed is excessive. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra V/s. Ishwarsharan Kedarnath 3 fa961-92 Bhargave [2008(1) Bom.C. R.757]. He submitted that in case of similarly situated land from the same village which was notified under the same notification, market value at the rate of Rs. 12 per square meter has been awarded. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that on 3rd February, 1970 a notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued by which lands from 96 villages in Taluka & District-Thane and Taluka-Panvel, District- Raigad were notified for acquisition for the purpose of setting up satellite city of Navi Mumbai. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent also relates to the lands from the same village which were notified for the same public purpose in between 13th September, 1968 to 2nd December, 1972. In the said case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had offered market value at the rate of Rs. 4.50 per square meter and the Reference Court had enhanced the market value to Rs.12 per square meter. The Division Bench after taking review of various decisions of this Court and Reference Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 12 per square meter. In the present case, the market value fixed is Rs.10 per 4 fa961-92 square meter. The market value fixed by the Division Bench in respect of a land from the same village notified for the same public purpose is Rs. 12 per square meter. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned Judgment and Award in so far as market value is concerned. There is no dispute as regards the for grant of statutory benefits. 6. Hence, there is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 7. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 5570 of 1992 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE