1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1698 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1698 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1698 OF 2008 in L.A.R. NO. 69 OF 2001 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicants (Org. Opponents) Vs. Yashwant Natha Patil ... Respondent (Org. claimant) Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for the applicants/State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 9th September,2008 DATE: 9th September,2008 DATE: 9th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned AGP for the State. With consent of the learned AGP, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Uran had acquired the land Survey No.85/1A, Survey No.100/8, Survey No. 36/2, Survey No. 25/1, Survey No.41/3, Survey No.22/1, Survey no.22/10, and Survey No.43/5 situated at Bhendkal, Taluka Uran, for the purpose of the New Bombay Project Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 3.2.1970 and the same was published in the official gazette. Eventually land was acquired and compensation was awarded. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,the respondent made a request to the Collector to refer the matter to the District Court. The claimant/respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. Accordingly, a reference was made before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag. According to the appellant, the claim of the respondent was exorbitant. After hearing the parties and after finding that in several other matters, the Court had fixed the rate at Rs.10/- or 12/- per sq. mtr., the Reference Court fixed the market value of the property at Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. and granted other consequential reliefs like solatium, additional compensation, interest, etc. accordingly. Being not satisfied with the market value 3 fixed by the reference court, the State has preferred the present appeal. 3. It appears that large number of properties from different villages in Taluka Uran were acquired for the New Bombay Project and under the notification dated 3.2.1970 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, several properties of the Village Bhendkal, Taluka Uran were acquired. The learned AGP fairly brought to the notice of this Court that in First Appeal No.70 of 1991 filed by the State of Maharashtra against similar properties from Village Bhendkal, Taluka Uran, this Court by Judgment dated 18.3.2008 dismissed the appeal and held that the market value fixed by the reference Court at Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. is just and proper. The present appeal is squarely covered by that decision. In view of this, I find no substance in the present Appeal. 4. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. 5. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, the C.A.No.704 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 4 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)