: 1 : SD 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.1039 OF 1989 FIRST APPEAL NO.1039 OF 1989 FIRST APPEAL NO.1039 OF 1989 The State of Maharashtra, . Thru’ The Special Land Acquisition . Officer, Metro Centre No.I, Panvel, . Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad ...Appellant V/s. Kana Nagu Mhatre, Deceased, . Thru’ 1.a) Janu Kanu Mhatre . 1.b) Maya Kana Mhatre . 1.c) Baban Kana Mhatre . 1.d) Gurunath Kana Mhatre . 1.e) Ambaji Kana Mhatre . 1.f) Mandabai H. Patil . All R/o. Khanda, Tal.Panvel . Dist. Raigad ...Respondents Mr.S.N. Gawade, AGP, for the Appellant-State. Mr.S.M. Kamble, Advocate, for the Respondents. WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1040 OF 1989 FIRST APPEAL NO.1040 OF 1989 FIRST APPEAL NO.1040 OF 1989 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3916 OF 2001 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3916 OF 2001 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3916 OF 2001 Kana Nagu Mhatre, Deceased, . Thru’ 1.a) Janu Kanu Mhatre . 1.b) Maya Kana Mhatre . 1.c) Baban Kana Mhatre . 1.d) Gurunath Kana Mhatre . 1.e) Ambaji Kana Mhatre . 1.f) Mandabai H. Patil . All R/o. Khanda, Tal.Panvel . Dist. Raigad ...Appellants V/s. The State of Maharashtra, . Thru’ The Special Land Acquisition . Officer, Metro Centre No.I, Panvel, . Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad ...Respondent : 2 : Mr.S.M. Kamble, Advocate, for the Appellants. . Mr.S.N. Gawade, AGP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT :- ORAL JUDGMENT :- ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Both the Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment as by both the Appeals the challenge is to the same Judgment and Award dated 19th October, 1988 in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. The acquisition relates to land bearing Survey No.90, Hissa No.5 and Survey No.90, Hissa No.6 admeasuring 1390 sq.mtrs. situated at Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The said land was notified for acquisition by a notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 3rd February, 1970. The land was notified for public purpose of setting up of a satellite city of Navi Mumbai. An Award under Section 11 of the said Act has been made on 19th March, 1985 by which compensation @ Rs.6.50 per sq.mtr. was awarded. As the claimant did not accept the Award, a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made at his instance. The claim in the Reference for market value was @ Rs.45/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court fixed the market value @ Rs.18/- per sq.mtr and : 3 : awarded statutory benefits to the claimants. 3. First Appeal No.1039 of 1989 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra praying for quashing and setting aside the Award. First Appeal No.1040 of 1989 is preferred by the claimants for seeking enhancement in the compensation amount. 4. The learned AGP for the State Government submitted that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and there is no basis for fixing the market value @ Rs.18/- per sq.mtr. He submitted that there is no evidence adduced by the claimants to justify the grant of compensation. The learned Advocate for the claimants submitted that in view of various decisions of this Court, the market value of the acquired land will be minimum Rs.23/- per sq.mtr. He, therefore, submitted that the Appeal preferred by the State Government be dismissed and Appeal preferred by the original claimant be allowed. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. My attention has been invited to a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nama Padu Hudar and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra (First Appeal No.754 of 1986) with other connected First : 4 : Appeals. The said group of Appeals was decided by a Division Bench of this Court [Coram : S.W. Puranik and D.J. Moharir, JJ] on 25th and 26th February, 1993. The Division Bench dealt with a group of Appeals arising out of Awards under Section 18 of the said Act relating to large numbers of lands situated at villages Panvel and Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which were notified under Section 4 of the said Act on 3rd February, 1970 for the public purpose of setting up of satellite city of Navi Mumbai. The Division Bench divided the lands into five different categories for the pruposes of fixing the market value. The division of lands subject matters of the Appeals before the Division Bench was made on the basis of the distance of the acquired lands either from Bombay-Pune National Highway or from the Zilla Parishad Road or Gaothan. Higher market value was fixed in case of lands closer to the highway. The decision of the Division Bench has attained finality in the sense that no Appeal was preferred against the said Judgment. It must be also noted here that the said decision of the Division Bench has been expressely approved by the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 6th March, 2006 in Civil Appeal No.1557 of 2006 (Shantadevi H. Ruparel V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.). In fact the Apex : 5 : Court directed that compensation shall be awarded to the land subject matter of the Appeal before it in terms of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). It is an admitted position that large tracts of lands situated at Villages Panvel, Kamothe, Taloja, Pendhar, Ulwe and other villages in Taluka Panvel of District Raigad were notified for acquisition by the same notification dated 3rd February, 1970 for the same public purpose. The lands in these villages which were subject matter of acquisition were agricultural lands. 6. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar will be certainly relevant for deciding the market value in the case in hand, as the acquired land subject matter of the case in hand is situated at Village Kamothe. The acquired land was also acquired alongwith the lands subject matter of the Appeals before the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar. It is, therefore, obvious that the market value in the present case will be governed by the said decision of the Division Bench. The categorization made by the Division Bench is as under:- ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ : 6 : Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted No. P.S.M. No. P.S.M. No. P.S.M. Rs.Ps. Rs.Ps. Rs.Ps. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ I. 754/1986 671 1(Part) 8240 25.00 Abutting the Highway 763/1986 694 2 5870 25.00 698 2 510 25.00 704 7 1060 25.00 704 2 3310 25.00 II. 751/1986 598 2/5 4270 23.00 Within (Part) 800 Metres 756/1986 665 1B 2450 23.00 665 1D 1800 23.00 663 1/5 1340 23.00 660 3 5830 23.00 III. 753/1986 614 2 3100 22.00 Abutting 751/1986 617 2 4350 22.00 Kamothe Z.P. (Part) Road to 1200 Metres 752/1986 548 7(Part) 2500 22.00 IV-A 755/1986 209 9 4560 20.00 800 Mtrs.to 2200 Mtrs. 213 10 1900 20.00 : 7 : from Bombay- Poona Highway IV-B 200 Mtrs. from Z.P. Rd. 743/1986 240 2 1900 20.00 & Gaothan to 640 Mtrs. from Z.P. Rd. 274 2 4760 20.00 & Gaothan ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ 7. The claimant has examined Mr.Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni, a valuer, as his witness. The valuation report made by the said witness has been admitted in evidence. The said report discloses that the distance of the acquired land from the highway is 160 meter. There is hardly any challenge to the said factual aspect narrated by Mr.Kulkarni. Therefore, the case will fall in second category as per the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). Hence market value payable will be at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.meter. Hence the Appeal preferred by the State Government must fail and the Appeal preferred by the original claimant deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I pass the following : 8 : order:- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" (a). First Appeal No.1039 of 1989 is dismissed. Appellant is directed to pay costs of the Appeal to the respondents. (b). First Appeal No.1040 of 1989 is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 19th October, 1988 is partly modified. Market value of the acquired land is fixed @ Rs.23/- per sq.mtr. In addition to the said market value, the claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Reference. (c). The learned Trial Judge will calculate the compensation amount payable to the claimants within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of the Judgment. (d). The appellants in the First Appeal No.1040 of 1989 will be entitled to : 9 : proportionate costs of the said Appeal from the respondent. : 10 : (e). Civil Application No.3916 of 2001 in First Appeal No.1040 of 1989 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (f). Writ to be sent down immediately. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]