Full Judgment Text
2008:BHC-AS:11156-DB
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2003
IN
L. A. R. NO. 118 OF 1994
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1535 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra )
(Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, )
MetroCentre No.1, Panvel, Dist. Raigad )..
Appellant
Versus
Smt. Parvatibai Vitthal Hudar (deceased) )
L.R. of deceased )
Sau. Sushila Chandrakant Patil, age 32 )
Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Khanda, Panvel, )
Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad, through Power of )
Attorney holder Shri Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar )
R/o. Plot No.22, Middleclass Housing Society )
Panvel, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad ).. Respondent
ALONG WITH
FIRST APPEAL NOS. 211 TO 234 OF 2003 FILED BY THE STATE
AND
FIRST APPEAL NOS. 1537, 1541, 1548 TO 1560, 1562 TO 1570 OF
2002 FILED BY THE CLAIMANTS
Mr. K.K. Tated, AGP, for the State.
Mr. S.M. Kamble for the Claimant/Respondent.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND
V.M . KANADE, J.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
-2-
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 11TH JUNE 2008
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 19TH JUNE 2008
JUDGMENT : (PER SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)
State of Maharashtra issued a Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on
rd
3 February 1970 intending to acquire lands for a public purpose,
namely, development and providing of plots for residential as well as
commercial purposes and for an industrial complex from the revenue
estate of Village Panvel. CIDCO was the developing authority for whose
benefit the lands had been acquired and eventually transferred to the
said Corporation. In furtherance to this Notification, declaration under
th
Section 6 of the Act was issued on 11 January 1973. The SLAO
exercising the powers of the Collector under the provisions of the Act
and after adopting the prescribed procedure, made an Award under
st
Section 11 of the Act on 21 January 1981. In this Award, the SLAO
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1.50/- to Rs.6/- per sq. mtr. for
the lands acquired. The possession of the land was taken by the
nd
official Respondents on different dates including 22 March 1974. The
Claimants had not preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act and
the Award passed by the SLAO remained binding between the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
-3-
During the intervening period, certain judgments were pronounced by
the Courts giving compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. to the
lands having distance of 1.1/2 kms. from the Bombay-Poona Highway
as well as Rs.25/- to Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. to the lands alleged to be near
to the National Highway. Being aware of these judgments in relation to
the acquisition of the lands from the same village, the Claimants filed
Petitions under Section 28A of the Act. The SLAO awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- to Rs.10/- per square meter. The
Claimants being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the
SLAO under Section 28A of the Act, filed petitions under section 28A(3)
of the Act before the Collector and prayed for award of compensation at
the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. mtr. The Collector referred the application to
the Reference Court. After giving opportunities to the parties to lead
evidence, the learned Reference Court decided all these References
th
under Section 28A(3) of the Act vide its Award dated 12 January 2000
and awarded following compensation to the Claimants while
categorising their acquired lands into four different categories :
“Group I : The lands which are very close to Railway
Station and Panvel-Matheran State Highway are
fetched more value and those lands are entitled to
have more value to the extent of Rs.27/- per Square
meter.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
-4-
Group II : The lands which are abutting to the
Bombay-Poona Highway within the 300 meters are
entitled to have a value of Rs.25/- per Square meter.
Group III : The lands which are at a distance of more
than 300 meters from Bombay-Poona Highway to the
extent of 1000 meters are entitled to receive the
compensation at the rate of Rs.22/- per Square meter.
Group IV : And the lands those are at a distance of
beyond the 1000 meters from the Bombay-Poona
Highway are liable to receive the compensation at the
rate of Rs.18/- per Square meter.”
2. The State felt aggrieved from the Award of the Reference
th
Court dated 12 January 2000 and preferred 25 Appeals though by the
Reference in question 36 claim Petitions were decided. In addition to
this, the Claimants have filed 25 Appeals against the same judgment
claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. mtr. Thus, in all,
there are 50 Appeals which are being disposed of by this common
judgment..
3. The witnesses of the Claimants were examined as CW-1 and
CW-2 and they proved on record Exhibits 23 to Exhibit 35. Amongst
these exhibits which were tendered and proved during recording of the
statements of the two witnesses, were the judgments of the Courts
and/or the statements recorded by the Courts in different land
References. The learned Reference Court mainly placed reliance on
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
-5-
the judgment of the High Court (Exhibit 25) in First Appeal No. 754 of
Nama Padu Hudar and other The State of
1986 in the case of vs.
Maharashtra
, 1993 (3) Bom. C.R. 54, where the High Court had decided
that the Claimants were entitled to receive compensation at the rate of
th
Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. on 26 February 1993.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not
necessary for us to discuss the evidence or the merits or otherwise of
the arguments addressed at any greater length. The learned Counsel
appearing for the parties i.e. the State as well as the Claimants
commonly agreed that the evidence led in the present case is similar to
the evidence which was allowed in First Appeal No.754 of 1986 as well
State of Maharashtra Prakash
as in First Appeal No. 604 of 1995 ( vs.
Vasudeo Deodhar
). They further agreed that thus the judgments of the
Courts rendered in either of these cases would squarely apply on fact
and law to the present Appeals. It is also agreed by the learned
Counsel appearing before us that they are not challenging the belting
and/or the grouping of lands as effected by the Reference Court and/or
as accepted by the judgments of the High Court in the aforementioned
judgments. In the above judgments, judgments of the High Court in
First Appeal Nos. 382 of 1984 and 875 1985 as well as Exhibit 25, in
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
-6-
addition to the other evidence, which were also considered by another
State of Maharashtra Smt.
Division Bench of this Court in the case of vs.
Kamali Keshav Mhatre and other
, 2005 (1) All MR 459, were referred.
5. In view of the common submission made by the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties, there is hardly any controversy that
requires determination by the Court. The learned Counsel appearing for
the State argued that the Claimants would not be entitled to the special
benefits accruing from the provisions of Section 23(1)(A) of the Act
wherever the Award made under Section 11 was prior to the cut off
th
date; i.e. 30 April 1982. There was hardly any opposition to this point
but in any case even this point is fairly covered by the judgments
referred to above by us.
6. We may notice that in First Appeal No.604 of 1995, a Division
Bench of this Court considered all the exhibits which were proved in the
present case as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the
case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra) and Smt.Kamali Keshav Mhatre
(supra). After detailed discussion, the Court accepted the view
expressed by the Division Bench in the case of Smt.Kamali Keshav
Mhatre (supra) and awarded compensation upon categorisation of the
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
-7-
lands identical to the compensation awarded in Mhatre's case (supra).
The reliefs granted in these Appeals were as under :-
“(a) Lands falling within 750 meters of the
National Highway – Rs.25/- per sq. mtr.
(b) Land falling within 750 to 1500 meters
of the National Highway – Rs.23/- per
sq. mtr.
(c) Land falling beyond 1500 meters of the
National Highway – Rs.21/- per sq. mtr.”
7. In addition to this, we may clarify that in First Appeal No.604
State of Maharashtra Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar
of 1995 ( vs. ), it has also
been held that the Claimants would not be entitled to the benefits
accruing from Section 23(1)(A) wherever the Awards under Section 11
are prior to the cut off date. Resultantly, all the 25 State Appeals are
thus allowed to the limited extent as afore-indicated and all the Appeals
filed by the Claimants are dismissed. However, the parties are left to
bear their own costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M. KANADE, J.
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::
-8-
::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2024 15:43:22 :::