1 fa49with x obj ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.49 OF 1991 WITH CROSS OBJECTION ST.10853 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant vs. 1 Babu Mahadeo Goware (since deceased through L.Rs.) 1A Rambhav Babu Goware 1B Manubai Sudam Patil 1C Radhabai Vasant Bhoir 1D Sunita Pandurang Keni 1E Anusaya Baban Patil 1F Padmabai Ram Patil ...Respondents Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the appellant Mr.Vishal Khanavkar for the respondents CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 24,2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 By this appeal, the appellant State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 8th September 1989 passed by the Civil Court in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Certain lands at village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad were notified under section 4 of the said Act on 3rd July 1970 for the purpose of setting up of satellite city of New Bombay. Award under section 11 of the said Act was made on 29th July 1986. There is another Award under section 11 of the said Act dated 11th August 1986. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. meter. Cross Objection has been filed by the respondent (original claimant) claiming market value at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. meter. 2 fa49with x obj 2 The learned A.G.P appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence adduced by the original claimant for discharging the burden on him to show that the market value awarded was inadequate. He submitted that there is no evidence adduced of the comparable sale instances. The learned counsel for the legal representatives of the respondent placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar [2008 (8) Bombay Cases Reporter 708]. He submitted that the map annexed to the valuation report which has been admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.45 shows that the acquired lands are situated at the distance between 750 meters to 1500 meters from the Bombay Pune national highway. He submitted that in view of the said decision, the respondents are entitled to enhancement in the market value. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Between the year 1967 to 1972, the lands in about 96 villages from Taluka Thane, District Thane and Taluka Panvel District Raigad were notified for acquisition for the purpose of setting up satellite city of New Bombay. Large tracts of lands from village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel were notified for the same purpose under notification dated 3rd February 1970. In case of Nama Padu Hudar [1993 (3) Bombay Cases Reporter 54], the Division Bench of this Court divided the lands situated at villages Kamothe and Panvel into different categories based on its distance from Mumbai-Pune national highway. The method adopted by this Court of dividing the lands into categories as aforesaid has been expressly upheld by the Apex Court in case of Shantadevi Ruparel Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another 3 fa49with x obj in Civil Appeal no.1557 of 2006 by Judgment dated 6th March 2006. There are other decisions including the case of Nama Padu Hudar of this Court taking the similar view. After considering the said decisions, in the case of Prakash Deodhar (supra) the Division Bench of this Court held that in case of lands falling within the distance of 750 meters to 1500 meters from the national highway, the market value should be fixed at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.meter. As of today, the said decision of the Division Bench has attained finality. Therefore, there is no reason why the said decision should not be followed. 4 Now turning to the facts of the case, the original claimant examined Mr.Manohar Gopal Vaidya as an Expert Valuer. In his evidence, the report and the map produced by him were proved and the map was marked as Exh.45. The said map shows that the acquired lands are situated at the distance within 750 meters to 1500 meters from the national highway. There is no cross examination made on the contents of the map and the report on this aspect. In the circumstances, the market value of the acquired lands in this case will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq. meter and to that extent the cross objection will have to be allowed. 5 Hence, I pass the following order : i) First Appeal no.49 of 1991 is dismissed with no order as to costs. ii)Cross Objection is partly allowed by directing that the respondents will be entitled to total market value at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq. meter (inclusive of the market value offered under section 11 of the said Act) together with all statutory benefits under section 23 (1-A), (2) and 28 of the 4 fa49with x obj Land Acquisition Act,1894. iii)The respondents will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Reference as well as cross objection from the State Government. iv)The exercise of determining the compensation payable in terms of the modified award shall be made by the Reference Court within a period of three weeks from the date on which writ of this Judgment is received by the said Court. v) Enhanced amount shall be deposited by the State Government within a period of three weeks from the date on which compensation amount is determined. JUDGE