1 fa-344.99n222.01.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.344 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant. Versus Shri Kathor Krishna Koparkar Respondent -- WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2001 Kathor Krishna Koparkar Appellant Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer Respondent Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant in First Appeal no.344 of 1999 and for Respondent in First Appeal no.222 of 2001 Shri A.N.Maniyar for the Appellant in First Appeal no.222 of 2001 and for the Respondent in First Appeal no.344 of 1999 CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED: 20th April, 2011 1 fa-344.99n222.01.sxw ORAL JUDGMENT: . These cross Appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as both arise out of the judgment and award dated 30th November, 1995 passed by the Reference Court in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). 2. The acquisition relates to the lands bearing Survey Nos. 43/1, 127/1, 127/3, 128/7,131/1+2A totally admeasuring 22560 sq. meters situate at Village Pendhar, Taluka – Panvel, District – Raigad. The notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 3rd February 1970. The purpose of acquisition was setting up satellite city of New Bombay. The amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer by an award under section 11 of the said Act was not accepted by the Respondents and, therefore, the Reference under Section 18 of the said Act has been made at the instance of the Respondents. The Reference was allowed and the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 12/- per sq. metre was fixed by the Reference Court. The Reference Court granted statutory benefits to the Respondents. 3. Learned AGP appearing for the State Government in support of the Appeal preferred by the State Government submitted that there is no evidence adduced of a comparable sale instances by the Claimant and he has not discharged the burden on him. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 fa-344.99n222.01.sxw Claimant placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16th March, 2000 in First Appeal No. 875 of 1985 ( Abdul Aziz Husenmiya Patel v. Special Land Acquisition Officer ) and other connected appeals. He submitted that by the said decision, the market value of the similarly placed acquired lands situated in the same village which were notified under the same notification was fixed at the rates ranging from Rs. 19/- per sq. metres to Rs.22/- per sq. metres. He, therefore, submitted that the Claimants are entitled to enhancement in compensation. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the lands situated in 86 different villages of Thane and Raigad Districts were notified in between the years 1968 to 1972 for the purposes of setting up of a satellite city of New Bombay. First Appeal No. 875 of 1985 ( Abdul Aziz Husenmiya Patel v. Special Land Acquisition Officer) and other connected Appeals arose out of the awards made by the Reference Court in respect of the lands situated at villages Pendhar, Taloja, Panchand, Owe, Belpada and Kharghar, Taluka – Panvel, District- Raigad, which were notified on 3rd February, 1970 for the same public purpose. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said decision, this Court has dealt with the lands situated at village Pendhar. In case of lands which were situated in a close proximity of Mumbai-Pune Highway and Sion-Panvel Highway, the Division Bench of this Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.22/- per sq. metre. In case the lands which were away from the Sion-Panvel Highway, the market value 1 fa-344.99n222.01.sxw was fixed at the rates of Rs. 20/- and Rs.19/- sq.meter. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said decision read thus:- “6. The first group of appeals is First Appeal No.875 of 1985 with First Appeal No.35 of 1986; First Appeal No.58 of 1992 with First No.460 of 1991; First Appeal No.110 of 1992 with First Appeal No.187 of 1992; First Appeal No.1091 of 1991 with First Appeal No.273 of 1991, and First Appeal No.175 of 1989 with First Appeal No.1426 of 1988. The lands acquired in this group of appeals are situated at village Pendhar and they are Survey No.s94, 95, 98, 111, 112, 155/1, 157/1, 157/2, 158/2, 168/0, 184/1, 184/2, 186/4, 230, 113, 45, 50, 51, 52, 154/2 and 182. All these lands are shown in yellow colour in the map submitted by Shri Paranjape. Shri Paranjape has also furnished separate charts in respect of the lands acquired in each of the above six villages, and they mentioned all the necessary and relevant particulars, such as, the date of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, date of taking possession, rate of compensation amount claimed under Section 9(3) and (4), the rate granted under the award under Section by the SLAO, the rate granted by the Reference Court and the rate claimed by the claimants in the appeals. It may be pointed out that there is no dispute about the correctness of these charts. In addition, Shri Paranjape has also submitted separate charts giving certain relevant data in respect of the acquired lands and the data includes details about the distance of the acquired lands from the village gaothan, railway station, industrial estate, highway, topography transport facilities, availability of water and electricity and cost of development, nature of soil, probable use of the land, etc. The correctness of these charts is not disputed by Shri Tated, the learned Assistant Government Pleader. We, therefore, propose to work out and determine the figures of market value on the basis of the information contained in the map as well as the charts submitted by Shri Paranjape. In fixing the rates, we have taken note of the market value of the similarly situated lands, as fixed in the afore-mentioned judgments delivered by the two Division Benches of this Court. 1 fa-344.99n222.01.sxw 7. So far as First Appeal No.875 of 1985 is concerned, there is acquisition of, in all, five lands, bearing Survey Nos.94, 95, 98, 111 and 112. Having regard to the location of these lands as well as the fact that they are situated, practically abutting the Mumbai- Pune Highway, we think that the proper market value in respect of the lands should be Rs.25,00 per sq. meter. As regards First Appeal No.58 of 1992, there is acquisition of seven lands bearing Survey Nos.155/1, 157/1, 157/2, 158/2, 168/0, 184/1 and 184/2. It is seen from the Chart that these lands are situated at a distance of 480 meters from Mumbai Pune Highway and 120 meters to the south of the Sion-Panvel Highway. The other factors in respect of these lands are almost the same as those of the lands in First Appeal No.875 of 1995. We further find that out of the above-mentioned seven lands, the lands bearing Survey Nos. 155/1, 157/1, 157/2, 184/1 and 184/2 are away from the Sion-Panvel Highway, as compared to the remaining two lands, that is, Survey Nos.158/2 and 168/0. We, therefore, propose to fix the market value of the first-mentioned five lands at Rs.20.00 per sq. meter and that of the afore-mentioned two lands at Rs.22.00 per sq. Meter. Coming to First Appeal No. 110 of 1992, there are two lands, that is, Survey Nos. 186/4 and 230, which were acquired. Considering their distances from the Highway as well as the other factors, we think that the market value of the land bearing Survey No.230 deserves to be fixed at Rs. 19.00 per sq. Meter, whereas in respect of the land bearing Survey No.186/4, the market value of this land deserves to be fixed at R.20.00 per sq. Meter. As regards First Appeal No.1091 of 1991 there is, only one land, that is, Survey No.113 is involved and it is touching the Pune-Mumbai Highway. Considering this factor, as well as the other factors, we think that the market value of this land deserves to be fixed at a higher rate, which, in our opinion, will be Rs.25.00 per sq. meter. This takes us to the last appeal in this group, that is, First Appeal No.175 of 1989. In this appeal, there is acquisition of only six lands bearing Survey Nos.45, 50, 51, 52, 54/2 and 182. Considering the distance from the Highway as well as the other factors, we think that the market value of Survey Nos.45, 154/2 and 182 will have to be fixed at Rs.20.00 per sq. meter, whereas that of the lands bearing Survey Nos.50 and 51 and 52, which are 1 fa-344.99n222.01.sxw more closer to the Highway will be Rs.22.00 per sq. meter.” (Emphasis added) The said decision has attained finality as the same has not been challenged. Hence, the market value in the present case will have to be fixed on the basis of the said decision. 5. Now turning to the facts of the case, the Claimant examined Mrs.Manjiri Joshi, a valuer as a witness. She stated that the distance between acquired lands and the Mumbai-Pune highway was 400 meters. The said statement has not been challenged in her cross-examination. Thus the acquired lands were within 400 meters of the Mumbai-Pune highway. The Claimant’s son stated that the Sion-Panvel highway was at distance of 3Kms. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid Judgment, the market value will have to be fixed at Rs.20/- per sq.meter. The Division Bench made deduction of 10% on account of development charges. Hence, in the present case, the market value will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.18/- per square meter. 6. Hence, I pass the following order. (i) The First Appeal No. 344 of 1999 is dismissed with no orders as to costs. (ii) The First Appeal No. 222 of 2001 is partly allowed. 1 fa-344.99n222.01.sxw (iii) The market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.18/- per sq. metre (inclusive of the market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer). In addition, the Claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (iv) The Reference Court shall determine the compensation payable in terms of the modified Award within a period of three months from the date on which the writ of this judgment is received by the said Court. (v) Time of three months is granted to the State Government to deposit the balance compensation amount from the date on which compensation amount is determined. (vi) The Respondents/Original Claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Reference and First Appeal no. 222 of 2001. ( A.S. OKA, J)