1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.62 of 2008 IN LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.4 OF 1993 Majas Land Development Corporation .... Appellant (Ori. claimant) vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (4) .... Respondents and The Executive Engineer (Land Acquisition Officer & Acquiring body) Mr. C.M. Korde, Senior Advocate i/by Mrs. Rajeeta R. Matkar, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. Coram : D.K. Deshmukh & Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, JJ. Date : 7th July, 2010 P.C.: 1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 6th/7th/ 22nd August 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge on Land Acquisition Reference No.4 of 1993. The brief facts leading to the appeal are that the respondents acquired land at survey No.11, Hissa no.2 and survey no.13, Hissa no.2 admeasuring 19,495.90 sq.mtr.situate at village Majas, Taluka Andheri, District Bombay for construction of Jogeshwar-Vikhroli link road. Notification for the purpose under Section 2 and 4 of Section 126 of the Maharashtra 2 Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was issued on 27th August 1975 and published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 9th October 1975. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed his Award under Section 11 of the said Act on 24th May 1980 offering market value at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.mtr. to the appellants with solatium at the rate of 15% per annum as against the claim made by the appellant of Rs.60/- per sq.mtr. 2. In the reference, the appellants led evidence of R. Ramchandra Pillai, a partner of the appellant and Harshad S. Maniyar, an expert, Chartered Engineer. The respondents led evidence of Sanjay Raghunath Kurvey, Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai. The appellants placed reliance on the Award made under Section 11 of the said Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31st January 1975 in Case No.LAQ/136 which was in respect of survey No.63(part), 65A/1 (part) and 65A/2 (part) of village Majas. In that Award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had valued the land subject matter of that Award at Rs.45/- sq. mtr. which was enhanced in the reference to Rs.49.50 per sq. mtr. The acquiring body on the other hand placed reliance upon the award under Section 11 of the said Act made on 23rd March 1997 in LAQ/SR/43. The acquisition under the said award was pursuant to the same notification as in the case on hand i.e. 27th August 1975. In that award, the Special Land 3 Acquisition Officer had offered market value at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr., which was enhanced in the reference to Rs.38/- per sq. mtr. 3. The learned Single Judge on appreciation of the evidence produced on record accepted the contention of the respondent about the value of land in question based upon the award in LAQ/SR/43 and rejected the claim of the appellant based on award No.LAQ/136. He found that the land in acquisition under award in LAQ/136 was not comparable with the land in question, there being several distinguishing factors. The land in question is six times larger in area than the area of the land under award No.LAQ/136. It is encumbered with 728 hutments. The acquiring body infact was required to rehabilitate the occupants of structures on the land in question by spending a sum of Rs.10,000/- per structure. The land in question did not have direct frontage and opening on the Western Express Highway and had a cemetery abutting to it. The land under the award in LAQ/136 had frontage to Western Express Highway on both sides because the Highway ran through it. It was also nearer to Jogeshwari Railway Station as compared to the land in question. As regards the land forming subject matter of Award No. LAQ/SR/43 admeasuring 11,985.90 sq.mtrs. and thus is closer in size to the land in question. It was abutting to the land in question on its rear side and as such comparable. 4 We have seen the entire record of the matter and are of the opinion that the above view taken by the learned Single Judge is a correct view, supported by the record. 4. The learned Single Judge also relying upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer V/S. Sri.Siddappa Omanna Tumari, reported in AIR 1995 S.C. 840 held that Award in LAQ/43 cannot be ignored for determining the market value, as the land forming subject matter of that Award is notified under the same notification, as land in question. 5. In our opinion, the impugned Judgment and Award does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] [D.K. DESHMUKH, J]