abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant V/s Parshuram Tanaji Thakur & Anr. .. Respondents Ms.S.P. Manchekar, A.G.P. for the appellant. Mr.S.V. Gavand for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 2ND DECEMBER 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard advocates for the appearing parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st August 2003 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act"). 3. The original respondent (since deceased) is represented by his legal representatives. Respondent’s - 2 - land bearing survey no.66/2 admeasuring 0 hectare 15 ares situated at village Kulwa (for short "the land") was acquired by the appellant State for the New Bombay Project. The award was published on 1st September 1986 awarding compensation of Rs.6,060.15 for the land. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the respondent requested the Collector to make a reference under section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the Collector made a reference to the District Court which transferred the matter to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad. By the impugned judgment and order dated 21st August 2003, the reference court held that the market value of the land was higher than the compensation awarded. The reference court held that the market value of the land as on the date of notification was Rs.10/- per sq. m. and accordingly it awarded compensation at that rate. The reference court held that the respondent was entitled to total compensation of Rs.78,483/-. After deducting Rs.6,060.15 being the compensation already paid, the reference court awarded the net compensation of Rs.72,422.85. Aggrieved by the decision of the reference court, the State is in appeal. 4. Several lands were acquired along with the suit land for the New Bombay Project. In almost all cases of acquisition, the land holders whose lands were acquired, - 3 - made applications to the Collector for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Some appeals against the judgments passed by the reference court had come up before this Court. Learned A.G.P. with her usual fairness states that First Appeal No.1130 of 2005 arising out of acquisition of adjoining land (acquired along with the suit land) was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 11th October 2005. The Division Bench held that the market value of the adjoining land was Rs.12/- per sq.m. Similarly, in First Appeal No.83 of 1992 and First Appeal No.959 of 1999 arising out of neighbouring lands acquired simultaneously with the suit land, this Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.m. Thus, the lands in the vicinity and in the neighbourhood and similarly situated were granted compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.m. Learned A.G.P. was unable to point out any difference in the situation, locality or value of the suit land and the land governed by the appeals mentioned above. 5. In the circumstances, the market value of the suit land, on the date of section 4 notification, was Rs.12/- per sq.m. The reference court has awarded compensation on the basis of market value of the suit land at Rs.10/- per sq.m. which is less than the market value of the adjoining similar lands as determined by - 4 - this Court. However, since the respondents have not filed any cross objection, they are not entitled to any increase. But the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court cannot be reduced. 6. For these reasons, there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)