The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Ragho Janu Chimane and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.1058 OF 1992
WITH
CROSS-OBJECTION (ST) NO.7589 OF 1993.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra,
through The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Metro Centre No.1, Panvel.

¶5

)
)
)...Appellant

¶6

Versus.

¶7

Ragho Janu Chimane & others)...Respondent

¶8

Mrs Geeta P. Mulekar, A.G.P for the Appellant.

¶9

Shri Rajesh Parab with Shri D.S.Sawant for the
Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J.

¶11

DATED : 03rd April, 2008.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶13

1.On 12th March, 2008 the submissions of the
learned advocates appearing for the parties were heard
and the judgment was reserved. Today the appeal is kept
for dictation of judgment.

¶14

2.The appellant-State of Maharashtra by preferring
this appeal has taken an exception to the judgment and
award dated 04th October, 1991 passed by the learned 3rd
Additional District Judge, Alibag, District Raigad in a
reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.

¶15

3.The acquisition relates to a land bearing survey

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

No.252, Hissa No.8 admeasuring 1080 sq meters situated
at village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The
said land was notified for acquisition by a notification
dated 03rd February, 1970 under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act").
The acquisition was for the public purpose of setting up
of satellite city of Navi Mumbai. As the respondents
did not accept the award made under section 11 of the
said Act, a reference was made at the instance of the
respondents under section 18 of the said Act. The claim
made by the respondents in the reference for market
value was at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq meter. By the
impugned Judgment and Award, the market value has been
fixed at the rate of Rs.14/- per sq meter. By
preferring the appeal the appellant-State of Maharashtra
is seeking to quash and set aside the impugned judgment
and award. There is a cross-objection filed by the
respondents seeking enhancement in market value at the
rate of Rs.20/- per sq meter.

¶18

4.The learned AssistantGovernment Pleader

¶19

appearing for the appellant submitted that there was no
evidence adduced of the comparable sale instances by the
respondents for discharging the burden upon them. She
submitted that there was no material on record to fix
the market value at the rate of Rs.14/- per sq meter.
The learned advocate appearing for the respondents

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench (Coram:
Puranik and Moharir, JJ) dated 25th and 26th February,
1993 in First Appeal No.754 of 1986 (Nama Padu Hudar and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra) and other connected
first appeals. It is submitted that the present appeal
will be governed by the said decision in the case of
Nama Padu Hudar (supra). He also placed reliance on a
decision of this Court dated 28th April, 2006 in First
Appeal No.694 of 1989 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Sau
Kumudini Narayan Rajwade) and other connected first
appeals. In particular he relied upon the decision in
the said judgment dated 28th April, 2006 relating to
First Appeal No.1057 of 1989. He also invited my
attention to the judgment and order dated 27th April,
2006 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.697 of
1989. He submitted that the cross-objection be allowed.

¶22

5.I have considered the submission. The reliance
is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in case of Nama Padu Hudar Vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra). The Division Bench dealt with the
appeals arising out of references under section 18 of
the said Act relating to the lands from villages Panvel
and Kamothe of Taluka Panvel, District Raigad where the
lands were acquired under the notification dated 03rd
February, 1970 under section 4 of the said Act for the
same public purpose.

¶23

: 4 :

¶24

6.After considering the location of various lands
and the nature of the lands, the Division Bench divided
the acquired lands in five categories depending upon its
distance from Bombay-Pune National Highway and Zilla
Parishad Road. The Division Bench has fixed different
market value for the lands falling in the said five
categories. The Apex Court by its decision dated 06th
March, 2006 in Civil Appeal No.1557 of 2006 (Shantadevi
Ruparel Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer) expressly
approved the said decision of the Division Bench of this
Court and directed to pay compensation as per the rates
fixed in case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). There is no
reason why the decision of Division Bench of this Court
should not be followed in the present case. As the said
decision of the Division Bench has attained finality,
this case will have to be decided in terms of the said
decision.

¶25

7.The Division Bench in the case of Nama Padu
Hudar (supra) held that market value of the lands at
village Kamothe situated abutting the Bombay-Pune
National Highway was Rs.25/- per sq meter. In case of
lands which were situated at the distance of 800 to 2200
meters from the National Highway, the Division Bench
fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq
meter.

¶26

: 5 :

¶27

8.In the group of first appeals decided by this
Court by judgment and order dated 28th April, 2006 this
Court was dealing with the appeals arising out of awards
made under section 18 of the said Act which related to
lands situated at village Kamothe which were notified
under the same notification for the same public purpose.
In First Appeal No.1057 of 1989 which was decided by the
aforesaid judgment and order, the acquired land situated
at village Kamothe was at a distance of 3220 meters.
Following the principles laid down in the case of Nama
Padu Hudar (supra) this Court fixed the market value at
the rate of Rs.18-/- per sq meter in respect of the said
land which was situated at a distance of 3220 meter from
the highway. Similarly, in First Appeal No.1084 of 1989
which was part of the same group decided by the
aforesaid judgment, the acquired land was situated at a
distance of 3440 meters from the Bombay-Pune National
Highway. Even in said case this Court fixed the market
value at the rate of Rs.18/- per sq meters on the basis
of the decision in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra).

¶28

9.Turning to the facts of the present case, the
respondents-claimants examined Shri Jeevan Narayan
Kulkarni, a valuer as an expert witness. In his
evidence, the valuation report prepared by him was
proved. The said valuation report at Exhibit 26

¶29

: 6 :

¶30

discloses that the distance of land subject matter of
this appeal from the said highway was about 3200 meters.
There is no challenge to the said statement made in the
report in the cross-examination of Shri Kulkarni. Thus,
the acquired land was situated at a distance of 3200
meters from the Bombay-Pune National Highway.

¶31

Therefore, following the decision of this Court dated
28th April, 2006 the market value will have to be fixed
at the rate of Rs.18/- per sq meter. The award under
section 11 of the said Act was made after 30th April,
1982 and hence there is no dispute regarding grant of
statutory benefits.

¶32

10.Hence, I pass the following order:

¶33

(i)First Appeal No.1058 of 1992 is dismissed with
no orders as to costs.

¶34

(ii)Cross-objection (St) No.7589 of 1993 is partly
allowed. The impugned judgment and award
dated 04th October, 1991 is modified by
holding that the respondents-claimants will be
entitled to market value at the rate of
Rs.18/- per sq meter. In addition to the said
market value, the respondents-claimants will
be entitled to statutory benefits under
section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land

¶35

: 7 :

¶36

Acquisition Act, 1894. The
respondents-claimants will be entitled to
proportionate costs of the reference as well
as cross-objections from the appellant.

¶37

(iii) The exercise of calculating the compensation payable under the modified award shall be completed by the learned trial Judge within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

¶38

(iv)Writ and Record and Proceeding to be sent down
early.

¶39

Judge.

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Ragho Janu Chimane and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Ragho Janu Chimane and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavankumar Irrrappa Koshti Vs Malati Bhimrao Mane-Patil and Ors.

Janaradan Anandrao Patil and Othrs Vs Guruprasad Raghunath Patil and Othrs

Pavankumar Irrrappa Koshti Vs Malati Bhimrao Mane-Patil and Ors.

Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs Media Entertainment Co.P.Ltd.

M/S Set Telecom Limited Vs the O. L. of Set Telecom Ltd.(Provisional Liquidator)

United Bank of India Vs the Official Liquidator through M/S. Machinery Manufacturing Cropn.Ltd.