High Court of Bombay dismissed State's appeal allowing cross objection. Court affirmed market value at Rs. 15/sq.meter based on respondent's prior claim limit, modifying trial judge's award.
First Appeal dismissed; Cross Objection partly allowed modifying award to Rs. 15 per sq. meter plus statutory benefits; costs awarded to Respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 699 OF 1989.
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION ST.NO.2/205 OF 1989.
The State of Maharashtra.... Appellant.
Versus.
Babu Timbo Mhatre
(since deceased through LRs.)
1. Anant Babu Mhatre
2. Raghunath Babu Mhatre
(since deceased through LRs.)
a) Smt.Gonubai Raghunath Mhatre.
b) Rajnath Raghunath Mhatre
c) Pandit Raghunath Mhatre.
d) Mrs.Sanjiwani Gomaji Mhatre
residing at Mamothe, Tal. Panvel,
Dist. Raigad.
3. Krishna Babu Mhatre.
4. Padmakar Babyu Mhatre.
5. Hanumant Babu Mhatre.
6. Sudhakar Babu Mhatre.
7. Hasubhai Babu Mhatre.
all residing at Jui Kamothe,
Taluka Panvel, Dist.Raigad.... Respondents.
Mrs.G.P.Mulekar for the Appellant.
Shri G.H.Keluskar for the Respondents.
CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J.
DATED : 8th January, 2007.
ORAL JUDGMENT.:
1.Heard the learned A.G.P. for the Appellant and
Shri Keluskar for the Respondents.
2.The challenge in this First Appeal is to the
Judgment and Award dated 22nd September 1988 passed by
: 2 :
the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad at
Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No.180 of 1986.
The said reference under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the
said Act of 1891) was made at the instance of the
Respondents.
3.The acquired land bearing Survey No.329 Hissa
No.3 admeasuring 9200 square meter is situated at
village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The
said land was notified under section 4 of the said Act
of 1894 on 3rd February 1970 for the public purpose of
New Bombay project. The Award under section 11 of the
said Act of 1894 was made on 11th August 1986. By the
said Award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered
market value at the rate of Rs.2/- per square meter. By
the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned trial Judge
held that the Respondents are entitled to the market
value at the rate of Rs.12/- per square meter.
4.The learned A.G.P. appearing for the Appellant
submitted that considering the nature of the acquired
land, the market value fixed at Rs.12/- per square meter
is on the higher side. The learned A.G.P. invited my
attention to the evidence of the valuer examined by the
Respondents. The learned Advocate for the Respondents
in support of cross objection placed reliance on the
: 3 :
decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 25th
and 26th February 1993 in First Appeal No.754 of 1986
(Nama Padu Hudar v/s. State of Maharashtra) and other
connected First Appeals. He submitted that considering
the evidence of the valuer examined by the Respondents
and considering the aforesaid decision of the Division
Bench, the Respondents are entitled to the market value
atleast at the rate of Rs.18/- per square meter.
5.I have considered the submissions made by the
learned Advocates appearing for the parties. My
attention has been invited to the decision of the
Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra).
In the said decision, the Division Bench dealt with the
appeals arising out of the awards made under section 18
of the said Act of 1894. The awards were relating to
the various lands acquired from the villages Panvel and
Kamothe, taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The lands
which were the subject matter of the Appeals before the
Division Bench were also notified under section 4 of the
said Act of 1894 on 3rd February 1970 for the same
public purpose viz. for development of satellite city
of Navi Mumbai. The Division Bench considered the
location of the two villages and the nature of the lands
which were acquired from the said two villages. The
Division Bench divided the said lands subject matter of
the Appeals before it into five categories. For the
: 4 :
said five categories, the Division Bench fixed the rates
of market value depending upon its distance from the
Bombay-Pune Highway. For the lands falling in category
I, the Division bench awarded the market value at
Rs.25/- per square meter. For the lands situated at a
maximum distance of 800 meters from the Highway, market
value was fixed at Rs.23/- per square meter and for the
land situated at the distance between 800 meters and
2200 meters, the market value was fixed at Rs.20 per
square meter.
6.I am informed that the said decision of the
Division Bench has attained finality. The Apex court in
its decision dated 6th March 2006 in Civil Appeal
No.1557 of 2006 (Shantadevi Hariram Ruparel v/s. Land
Acquisition Officer and another) referred to the
decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu
Hudar (supra). The Apex Court approved the method
adopted by the Division Bench of dividing the acquired
lands into five different categories for the purposes of
fixing the market value. In fact the Apex Court issued
a direction in the said case to fix the market value of
the acquired lands subject matter of the Appeal before
the Apex Court in terms of the said decision of the
Division Bench. In my view there is no reason why the
decision in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra) cannot
be considered for determining the market value of the
: 5 :
acquired land in the present case.
7.The Respondent examined Shri Jeevan Narayan
Kulkarni, a valuer in support of their case. He
submitted a valuation report which was proved in his
evidence. The said report is at Exh.21. The said
report discloses that the acquired land is situated at a
distance of 3360 meters from the Highway. The Division
Bench fixed the market value of Rs.20/- per sq.meter for
the land at village Kamothe which is at a distance of
2200 meters from the Highway. For a land at a distance
of 800 meters the marked value fixed by the Division
Bench is Rs.23/- per sq.meter. Therefore, the acquired
land which is the subject matter of the present Appeal
which is at a distance of 3300 meters, the market value
cannot be less than Rs.16/- to Rs.17/- per sq.meter.
8.In the Reference Application the Respondents
claimed market value at the rate of Rs.15/- per
sq.meter. In the cross objection the Respondents are
claiming the market value at the rate of Rs.18/- per
sq.meter. Since the claim in the Reference under
section 18 of the said Act of 1894 was restricted to
Rs.15/- per sq.meter, in the cross objection, a rate
which is more than Rs.15/- cannot be awarded.
Therefore, the Respondents are entitled to the market
value at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.meter.
: 6 :
9.Hence the Appeal preferred by the State will
have to be dismissed and the cross objection filed by
the Respondent will have to be allowed.
10.Hence the following order is passed:
i)First Appeal No.699 of 1989 is dismissed.
The State Government is directed to pay
costs of the Appeal to the Respondents.
ii)Cross Objection filed by the Respondents
is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment
and Award is modified by directing that
the original Claimants will be entitled
to the market value at the rate of
Rs.15/- per sq.meter together with all
statutory benefits under sections
23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The Respondents
will be entitled to the proportionate
costs from the State Government of the
Reference as well as the Cross Objection.
iii)The Reference Court will calculate the
amount of compensation payable to the
Respondents (Claimants) after notice to
the State Government. This exercise will
be completed within a period of four
: 7 :
months from the date of receipt the writ
of this order from this Court.
iv)Writ of this order be sent immediately.
Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the market value claimed by the Respondents exceeds the maximum claim made in the original reference application.
Whether the learned Civil Judge correctly fixed the market value at Rs. 12/- per square meter.
Whether the cross objection filed by the Respondents should be allowed with modification.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nama Padu Hudar v/s. State of MaharashtraReferred¶18
First Appeal No.754 of 1986 (Nama Padu Hudar v/s. State of Maharashtra)
Shantadevi Hariram Ruparel v/s. Land Acquisition Officer and anotherReferred¶22
Civil Appeal No.1557 of 2006 (Shantadevi Hariram Ruparel v/s. Land Acquisition Officer and another)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Babu Timbo Mhatre LRs.
Abhay S. Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court