: 1 : Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.799 OF 1990 FIRST APPEAL NO.799 OF 1990 FIRST APPEAL NO.799 OF 1990 1. Kamlakar Shankar Pavanekar, Deceased, . Thru’ 1/A. Ravindra K. Pavanekar . 1/B. Hashibai K. Pavanekar . Both residing at Kamothe, . Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad. . 2. Mohan Shankar Pavanekar . 3. Atmaram Shankar Pavanekar . 4. Hashibai Sitaram Mhatre ...Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra . Thru’ Special Land Acquisition Officer, . Panvel, Dist. Raigad. ...Respondent Mr.Sachin Punde, Advocate, h/f. Rajiv Patil, for the Appellant. Ms.G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for the Respondent. WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.366 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.366 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.366 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra . Thru’ Special Land Acquisition Officer, . Panvel, Dist. Raigad. ...Appellant V/s. 1. Kamlakar Shankar Pavanekar, Deceased, . Thru’ 1/A. Ravindra K. Pavanekar . 1/B. Hashibai K. Pavanekar . Both residing at Kamothe, . Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad. . 2. Mohan Shankar Pavanekar . 3. Atmaram Shankar Pavanekar . 4. Hashibai Sitaram Mhatre ...Respondents Ms.G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for the Appellant. Mr.Sachin Punde, Advocate, h/f. Rajiv Patil, for the Respondents. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. : 2 : DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2008. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. These two Appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as the challenge in both the Appeals is to the same judgment and award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said judgment and award has been made in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. The land subject matter of this Reference is situated at Village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The area of the acquired land is 1,640 square meters. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act of 1970 was issued on 3rd February, 1970 notifying the said land for public purpose of setting up a satellite city of Navi Mumbai. The award was made on 20th January, 1986 under Section 11 of the said Act. The claimants claimed the market value @ Rs.25/- per square meter in the reference under Section 18 of the said Act. By the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court has fixed the market value @ Rs.15/- per square meter and has directed that the claimant will be entitled to all the statutory benefits. : 3 : 3. First Appeal No.366 of 1991 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned award. First Appeal No.799 of 1990 is preferred by the claimants for seeking further enhancement. The learned Advocates appearing for the parties have taken me through the notes of evidence and the other relevant material available on record. 4. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Nama Padu Hudar and Others V/s. State of Maharashtra (First Appeal No.754 of 1986) with other connected Appeals dealt with Appeals arising out of Awards under Section 18 of the said Act relating to the lands situated at Villages Kamothe and Panvel in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The said lands were notified for acquisition under the said notification dated 3rd February, 1970 for the same public purposes. It must be noted here that large tracts of lands at various villages such as Panvel, Kamothe, Pendhar, Taloja etc. in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad were notified for acquisition for the same purpose under the notification of the same date. The Division Bench classified lands at Village Kamothe and Village Panvel into five different categories depending on the : 4 : distance of the acquired lands either from Bombay-Pune Highway or from Zilla Parishad Road. The market value of various lands which were subject matter of the said Appeals was fixed by the Division Bench depending upon the distance of the acquired land from the highway or Zilla Parishad Road as aforesaid. The said decision has attained finality. Moreover, the Apex Court by a judgment dated 6th March, 2006 in the case of Shantadevi Ruparel V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another (Civil Appeal No.1575 of 2006) has approved the said decision of this Court in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (Supra) and directed that the market value of the land subject matter of the Appeal before it shall be determined on the basis of the said decision in the case of Nama Padu Hudar. There is no reason why the said decision of the Division Bench should not be applied to this case. 5. In the present case, the claimants examined one Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni as an expert valuer. The report of the said valuer has been produced and proved. The report discloses that the acquired land is situated at the distance of 840 meters from the Bombay-Pune National Highway. Perusal of the cross-examination of Mr.Kulkarni made by the State Government shows that there is no challenge to this : 5 : part of his report. 6. The acquired land will fall in category IV-A as provided in the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (Supra). As per the said category, the market value will have to be fixed @ Rs.20/- per square meter. There is no dispute regarding entitlement of the claimants to the statutory benefits. 7. Hence, the Appeals are disposed of by passing following order :- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" [a]. First Appeal No.366 of 1991 is dismissed. The appellant will pay costs of the Appeal to the Respondents. [b]. First Appeal No.799 of 1990 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified. The claimants will be entitled to market value @ Rs.20/- per square meter and statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claimants will be entitled to : 6 : proportionate costs of the Reference as well as the said Appeal. [c]. The Reference Court will calculate the total amount of compensation payable to the claimants in terms of this judgment within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. [d]. The writ of the Judgment as well as the record and proceedings shall be transmitted to the Reference Court as expeditiously as possible. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]