1 fa112-95-j. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO.112 OF 1995 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6208 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra ] (Through the Special Land ] .. Appellant Acquisition Officer, ] (Original Opponent) Metro Centre No.4, Panvel) ] V/s. Upasani Estate Sakori Trust ] Through Shri Tulshidas Dungarasi ] .. Respondent Thakkar, R/at. Panvel, ] (Original Claimant) Panjarpola Road, Panvel. ] ..... Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for the appellant. None for the respondent. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 15, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- By this Appeal, the appellant State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 17th September, 1981 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Raigad-Alibag in a Reference Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to the “said Act”). 2 fa112-95-j. 2. The acquired land admeasures 13569.10 square meters situated at village Vadavali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Notification dated 4th February, 1970 under Section 4 of the said Act was issued in respect of the acquired land by which the land was notified for acquisition for the public purpose of setting up satellite city of Navi Mumbai. Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 19th September, 1986. At the instance of the respondent, a Reference under Section 18 was made. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Reference Court has granted market value at the rate of Rs.11/- per square meter. 3. The learned AGP appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent has failed to discharge the burden by adducing evidence to show that the market value offered by Award under Section 11 of the said Act was inadequate. He submitted that in absence of any evidence adduced by the respondent-claimant, there was no case made out for grant of enhancement. None appears for the respondent. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the record. A true copy of the Award under Section 11 of the said Act forwarded by the land acquisition officer is on the record of the 3 fa112-95-j. reference. Perusal of the said Award and application for Reference shows that the name of the village in which the acquired land is situated is Valavali. However, in the impugned Judgment, the learned trial Judge referred to the name of the village as Vadavali. Even in the letter sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarding the Reference to the trial Court, name of the village is mentioned as Vadavali and not Valavali. 5. It is not disputed that the lands located in 86 villages situated in Districts Thane and Raigad were notified between the year 1967-72 for public purpose of setting up satellite city of Navi Mumbai. This Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Ramdas Dhaya Patil (First Appeal No.25 of 1993) had occasion to dealt with the Appeal preferred by the appellant State of Maharashtra challenging an Award made under Section 18 of the said Act in relation to acquired land at village Valavali which was notified under Section 4 of the said Act on the same date for the same public purpose. This Court dealt with the evidence on record as regards the location of village Valavali. After considering the various factors, this Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the lands at village Valavali on 4th February, 1970 was Rs.15/- per square meters. After making deduction on account of development charges, the 4 fa112-95-j. market value was fixed at the rate of Rs.14/- per square meters. 6. As narrated earlier, in the present case, the market value of the acquired land at the same village has been fixed at the rate of Rs.11/- per square meters. There is no dispute regarding grant of statutory benefits. Hence, there is no reason to find fault with the market value fixed at the rate of Rs.11/- per square meters. 7. Hence, Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Civil Application No.6208 of 1995 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE