CIVIL APPEAL 1557 of 2006 on 3 February 1970

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. These two Appeals can be disposed of by a common Judgment as the same arise out of the same impugned Judgment and Award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").

: 2 :

2. The acquisition relates to land bearing Survey No.564 Hissa No.3 and Survey No.564 Hissa No.1

admeasuring 57.5 Ars situated at Village Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The acquired land was 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. An Award was made under Section 11 of the said Act on 28th February,

1986. As the claimant did not accept the amount offered by the Award, at his instance, a Reference under Section 18 of the said Act was made. The claimant prayed for market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.meter. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned Trial Judge fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.meter. The learned Trial Judge granted statutory benefits to the claimant.

3. First Appeal No.406 of 1989 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra praying for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Award. First Appeal No.1071 of 1989 is preferred by the original claimant seeking enhancement in compensation.

4. The submission of the learned AGP appearing in : 3 :

support of First Appeal No.406 of 1989 is that considering the evidence on record, compensation awarded is exorbitant. His submission is that there is no evidence on record justifying fixation of market value at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.meter. The learned Advocate appearing for the legal representatives of the claimant relied upon various decisions of this Court and submitted that for a similarly situated land, a Division Bench of this Court has awarded market value at the rate which is much more than Rs.20/- per sq.meter.

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,

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 : 4 :

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 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.

: 5 :

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 Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted No. P.S.M.

Appeal Sq.Mt. Granted

No. P.S.M.

Rs.Ps.

Rs.Ps.------------------------------------------------------

I. 754/1986 671 1(Part) 8240 25.00

Abutting

the Highway 763/1986 694 2 5870 25.00

698 2 510 25.00

704 7 1060 25.00

: 6 :

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.

from Z.P. Rd. 743/1986 240 2 1900 20.00

& Gaothan to

640 Mtrs.

: 7 :

from Z.P. Rd. 274 2 4760 20.00

& Gaothan

7. In the present case, the claimants have lead evidence. The claimants have examined their constituted attorney as well as one Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni, a valuer, as a witness. The said Mr.Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni deposed that the distance of the acquired land from Highway is 720 meters. The said statement also forms a part of the report submitted by Mr.Kulkarni which has been admitted in evidence.

There is hardly any cross-examination of Mr.Kulkarni on this aspect. Thus, the acquired land falls in category II fixed by the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar. The market value will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.meter. But, the original claimant has claimed market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.meter. Hence to that extent, the Appeal preferred by the original claimant must succeed. The Appeal preferred by the State Government will have to be dismissed. Considering the date of the Award under Section 11 of the said Act, there is no dispute regarding grant of statutory benefits.

8. Hence, I pass following order:-

: 8 :

"O R D E R"

"O R D E R"

"O R D E R"

(a) . First Appeal No.406 of 1989 is

dismissed. The appellant will pay costs of the Appeal to the respondents.

(b) . First Appeal No.1071 of 1989 is

allowed. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 18th July, 1988 is modified by directing that the claimants will be entitled to market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.meter. In addition to the said market value, the claimants will be entitled to statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and (28)

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(c) . The claimants will be entitled to the proportionate costs of the Reference from the State Government.

(d) . The Reference Court will calculate the compensation amount payable to the claimants within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

: 9 :

(e) . The respondent-State Government will pay costs of the First Appeal No.1071 of 1989

to the appellants in the said Appeal.

(f) . Writ to be sent down immediately.

[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

[ABHAY S. OKA, J.]