: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.734 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.734 OF 1991 FIRST APPEAL NO.734 OF 1991 State Government of Maharashtra, . Thru’ Special Land Acquisition . Officer, Metro Centre No.1, . Panvel, District Raigad ...Appellant V/s. Bama Chandar Bhagat . R/o. Village Panvel, (Motha Khanda), . Post Panvel, Taluka Panvel, . District Raigad ...Respondent Ms.G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for the Appellant. . Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate, for the Respondent. WITH WITH WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.235 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.235 OF 1992 FIRST APPEAL NO.235 OF 1992 Bama Chandar Bhagat . R/o. Village Panvel, (Motha Khanda), . Post Panvel, Taluka Panvel, . District Raigad ...Appellant V/s. State Government of Maharashtra, . Thru’ Special Land Acquisition . Officer, Metro Centre No.1, . Panvel, District Raigad ...Respondent Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate, for the Appellant. . Ms.G.P. Mulekar, AGP, for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. Date on which Judgment Date on which Judgment Date on which Judgment is reserved : 17th January, 2008. is reserved : 17th January, 2008. is reserved : 17th January, 2008. Date on which Judgment Date on which Judgment Date on which Judgment is pronounced : 7th March, 2008. is pronounced : 7th March, 2008. is pronounced : 7th March, 2008. JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : 1. These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment as the challenge in these two : 2 : Appeals is to the same Judgment and Award dated 31st May, 1990 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad at Alibag in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). 2. The acquisition relates to a land bearing Survey No.127, Hissa No.2 admeasuring 3946 sq.meters situated at Village Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. A notification under section 4 of the said Act was issued on 3rd February, 1970 by which the said land was notified for acquisition for public purpose of setting up of satellite city of Navi Mumbai. An Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 20th November, 1981 by which market value was offered at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.meter. As the Award was not accepted by the claimant, at his instance, a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the Reference Court has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.meter and has granted statutory benefit of interest under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and (28) of the said Act to the claimant. In a Reference under Section 18, the claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.meter. : 3 : 3. First Appeal No.734 of 1991 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra praying for quashing the impugned Judgment and Award and First Appeal No.235 of 1992 has been preferred by the claimant for seeking enhancement. 4. The submission of the learned AGP is that the market value awarded by the Reference Court is exorbitant and the same cannot be justified on the basis of the evidence on record. The learned AGP submitted that as the Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made prior to 30th April, 1982, interest under Section 23(1-A) could not have been granted by the Reference Court. The Advocate appearing for the claimant has placed reliance on various decisions of this Court and submitted that the claimant is entitled to enhancement in the market value. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. My attention has been invited to a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nama Padu Hudar and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra (First Appeal No.754 of 1986) with other connected First Appeals. The said group of Appeals was decided by a Division Bench of this Court [Coram : S.W. Puranik and D.J. Moharir, JJ] on 25th and 26th February, : 4 : 1993. The Division Bench dealt with a group of Appeals arising out of Awards under Section 18 of the said Act relating to large numbers of lands situated at villages Panvel and Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which were notified under Section 4 of the said Act on 3rd February, 1970 for the public purpose of setting up of satellite city of Navi Mumbai. The Division Bench divided the lands into five different categories for the purposes of fixing the market value. The division of lands subject matters of the Appeals before the Division Bench was made on the basis of the distance of the acquired lands either from Bombay-Pune National Highway or from the Zilla Parishad Road or Gaothan. Higher market value was fixed in case of lands closer to the highway. The decision of the Division Bench has attained finality in the sense that no Appeal was preferred against the said Judgment. It must be also noted here that the said decision of the Division Bench has been expressly approved by the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 6th March, 2006 in Civil Appeal No.1557 of 2006 (Shantadevi H. Ruparel V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.). In fact the Apex Court directed that compensation shall be awarded to the land subject matter of the Appeal before it in terms of the decision of the Division Bench in the : 5 : case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). It is an admitted position that large tracts of lands situated at Villages Panvel, Kamothe, Taloja, Pendhar, Ulwe and other villages in Taluka Panvel of District Raigad were notified for acquisition by the same notification dated 3rd February, 1970 for the same public purpose. The lands in these villages which were subject matter of acquisition were agricultural lands. 6. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar will be certainly relevant for deciding the market value in the case in hand, as the acquired land subject matter of the case in hand is situated at Village Panvel. The acquired land was also acquired alongwith the lands subject matter of the Appeals before the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar. It is, therefore, obvious that the market value in the present case will be governed by the said decision of the Division Bench. The categorisation made by the Division Bench is as under:- ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Group No. First S.No. H.No. Area Rate Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted No. P.S.M. No. P.S.M. No. P.S.M. Rs.Ps. Rs.Ps. Rs.Ps. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ I. 754/1986 671 1(Part) 8240 25.00 : 6 : Abutting the Highway 763/1986 694 2 5870 25.00 698 2 510 25.00 704 7 1060 25.00 704 2 3310 25.00 II. 751/1986 598 2/5 4270 23.00 Within (Part) 800 Metres 756/1986 665 1B 2450 23.00 665 1D 1800 23.00 663 1/5 1340 23.00 660 3 5830 23.00 III. 753/1986 614 2 3100 22.00 Abutting 751/1986 617 2 4350 22.00 Kamothe Z.P. (Part) Road to 1200 Metres 752/1986 548 7(Part) 2500 22.00 IV-A 755/1986 209 9 4560 20.00 800 Mtrs.to 2200 Mtrs. 213 10 1900 20.00 from Bombay- Poona Highway IV-B 200 Mtrs. : 7 : from Z.P. Rd. 743/1986 240 2 1900 20.00 & Gaothan to 640 Mtrs. from Z.P. Rd. 274 2 4760 20.00 & Gaothan ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ 7. In support of the claim, apart from the claimant, one Manohar Gopal Vaidya was examined as a valuer. His report was proved in the evidence and the same was marked as Exhibit-22. In the said report, the expert has stated that the acquired land is situated at the distance of 400 meters from the aforesaid highway. There is no cross-examination made of the said witness on this aspect. Thus, the acquired land in the present case will be covered by category II as fixed by the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). Hence, market value of the acquired land will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.meter. 8. In the present case, the Award under Section 11 has been made on 20th November, 1981. Therefore, in view of settled position of law as reflected from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornam V/s. State of Kerala [(1994) 5 SCC 593], : 8 : the claimant will not be entitled to benefit of interest under Section 23(1-A) of the said Act. However, he will be entitled to the other statutory benefits. 9. Hence, I pass following order :- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" (a). First Appeal No.734 of 1991 is partly allowed to the extent that the claimant will not be entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (b). First Appeal No.235 of 1992 is partly allowed. The claimant will be also entitled to market value at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.meter. The claimant will be entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (c). The claimant will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Reference. (d). There will be no orders as to costs in First Appeal No.734 of 1991. : 9 : (e). In First Appeal No.235 of 1992, the State Government will pay proportionate costs to the claimant. (f). The learned Trial Judge will complete the exercise of calculating the compensation payable to the claimant within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this Judgment. (g). Writ to be sent down immediately. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]