ash 1 fa-853andXobjnst-24862.88 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 853 OF 1988 WITH CROSS OBJECTION ST. NO.24862 OF 1988 The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant Vs Bhimabai Nagu Mhatre & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard the learned AGP for the Appellant. Though the Court service notice is served to the Respondents, none appears for them. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 6 th April, 1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, District – Raigad, in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). ash 2 fa-853andXobjnst-24862.88 3. The acquired land is Survey No. 73, Hissa No. 4, admeasuring 3420 sq. Metres situated at Village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 3 rd February, 1970. An award was made under Section 11 of the said Act. On 26th August, 1985, the market value at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq. Metre was offered by the said award. At the instance of the predecessors of the Respondents, a reference was made under Section 18 of the said Act. The market value at the rate of Rs.20/- psm was prayed in the reference. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Trial Judge has fixed the market value of Rs.15/- psm. The learned Judge has also granted statutory benefit under Sections 23(1) (a), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act. 4. The learned AGP submitted that the view taken by the Reference Court is not correct as there was no evidence adduced by the Respondents to show that the market value of the acquired land was at the rate of Rs.20/- psm on the relevant date. He submits that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the Respondents, the market ash 3 fa-853andXobjnst-24862.88 value could not be enhanced. None appears for the Respondents. 5. I have considered the submissions. Paragraph 4 of the judgment and order dated 5 th April, 2006 in FA 393 of 1989 passed by this Court reads thus:- “My attention has been invited to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 25 th/26th February 1993 in First Appeal No. 754 of 1986 ( Nama Padu Hudar v/s. The State of Maharashtra ) with the other connected First Appeals. In the said decision, the Division Bench dealt with the Appeals arising out of Awards made under section 18 of the said Act. The Awards were relating to the lands acquired from the villages Panvel and Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The lands which were the subject matters of the Appeals were also notified for the same public purpose of development of satellite city of Navi Mumbai and notifications under section 4 of the said Act in respect of the said lands were also issued on 3 rd February 1970. The Division Bench considered the locations of the said two villages and the nature of lands which were acquired from the said two villages. It is not in dispute that large number of lands were acquired from the said two villages and other adjoining villages from Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, for the same public purpose. The Division Bench divided the land subject matter of the Appeal into five categories. The said categories read as under: ash 4 fa-853andXobjnst-24862.88 Group No. Rate granted.p.s.m. Rs.Ps. I. Abutting the Highway. 25.00 II. Within 800 meters. 23.00 III. Abutting Kamothe Z.P.Road to 1200 meters. 22.00 IV-A. 800 Mtrs.to 2200 Mtrs. from Bombay-Pune Highway. 20.00 IV-B. 200 Mtrs.from Z.P.Road and Gaothan to 640 Mtrs. from Z.P.Road and Gaothan. 20.00 The rates of the market value fixed by the Division Bench are mentioned against the respective categories. It is not disputed that the decision of the Division Bench has attained finality. My attention has been invited to a recent decision of the Supreme Court dated 6 th March 2006 in Civil Appeal No. 1557 of 2006 ( Shantadevi Hariram Ruparel v/s. Land Acquisition Officer and another). I find that the method adopted by the Division Bench in the said decision of dividing the lands in five different belts has been expressly approved by the Apex Court and in fact in the case before the Apex Court a direction was issued to fix the market value of the acquired lands in terms of the said decision of the Division Bench. In view of this decision, there is no reason why the decision of the Apex Court should not be applied to this case.” ash 5 fa-853andXobjnst-24862.88 5. In the present case, the Respondents examined expert valuer as a witness. The said expert valuer Mr. Manohar Gopal Vaidya stated that the acquired land is abutting the Bombay-Pune Highway. There is no cross examination on this aspect. The 2 nd Respondent stated in his deposition that the acquired land is close to highway. 6. In the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra), the Division Bench fixed the market value of the similarly located lands at village Kamothe depending upon the distance of the acquired land from the National Highway. In case of land abutting the highway, the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.25/- psm. In case of lands situated at a distance of 1200,metres from highway, the market value is fixed Rs.22/- psm. 7. In the present case, the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.15/- psm. There is no dispute about the entitlement of the Respondents to receive statutory benefits. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. As none appears for the Respondents, the cross objections will have to be dismissed. Hence, I pass the following order. ash 6 fa-853andXobjnst-24862.88 ORDER a) The Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. (b) The Cross Objection Stamp No. 24862 of 1988 is dismissed for non-prosecution. (A.S.OKA, J)