Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri.Gopal Ganu Shelke and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2011FA/28/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed cross objection dismissing first appeal, fixing market value at Rs. 20/sqm based on proximity to National Highway, and directed Reference Court to determine compensation. Ordered statutory benefits and stated time limits for payment.

What did the court decide?

First appeal dismissed; Cross Objection allowed; Market value fixed at Rs. 20/sqm inclusive; Statutory benefits granted; Reference Court to determine compensation within 3 months.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri.Gopal Ganu Shelke and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

fa-28.93andXObjc

ash

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 1993

¶5

WITH

¶6

CROSS OBJECTION ST. NO. 22582 OF 1993

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, ) Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ) Metro Centre No.1, Panvel. ). Appellant (Org. Opponent ) Versus 1. Shri Gopal Ganu Shelke, ) 2. Shri Naga Ambo Shelke, ) Both R/o. Adai, Tal. Panvel, ) District – Raigad. ) Respondents ( Org. Claimants ) --

¶8

Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for the Appellant. Shri R.L. Patil for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 27^TH JANUARY, 2011

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

. The State of Maharashtra has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 28^th February, 1992 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Raigad, in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”).

fa-28.93andXObjc

ash

The acquisition relates to the land bearing Survey No. 62 admeasuring 4120 sq. metres situate at Village Asudgaon, Taluka – Panvel, District – Raigad. The amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was not accepted by the Respondents and, therefore, the Reference under Section 18 of the said Act has been made at the instance of the Respondents. The Reference was partly allowed and the market value of the acquired land at Rs.12/- per sq. metre was fixed by the Reference Court. The Reference Court granted statutory benefits to the Respondents.

¶16

The submission of the learned AGP for the Appellant is that there is no evidence adduced by the Respondents in respect of a comparable sale instances and the burden on the Respondents to show that the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate has not been discharged. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 26^th April, 2006 in First Appeal No. 607 of 1987 which, in turn, is relied upon a decision of a Division Bench dated 31^st March, 2004 in First Appeal No. 757 of 2003 ( State of Maharashtra vs. Kamali Keshav Mhatre & Others ). He pointed out that the market value of the various lands in the same village was fixed depending upon its distance from Bombay Pune Highway. He pointed out that the distance from the Highway in the present case is 1520 metres. Hence, he submitted that the market value will have to be fixed at Rs.20/- per sq. metre in view of the decision of this Court.

fa-28.93andXObjc

ash

I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that the lands falling within the limit of 92 several villages from Taluka Thane, District Thane and Taluka Panvel, District Raigad were notified in the year 1970 for acquisition for the purposes of setting up the satellite city of New Bombay. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 31^st March, 2004 in Fist Appeal No. 757 of 2003 dealt with the lands acquired from the village Asudgaon under the notification under Section 4 of the same date. The Division Bench after applying deduction of 10%, fixed the market value of the acquired land falling within the distance of 750 metres of the National Highway at Rs.25/- per sq. metre and the market value of the lands situated at a distance of 1500 sq. metres was fixed at Rs. 21/- per sq. metre.

¶21

In the present case, the Respondents relied upon a valuation report of Shri Jeevan Narayan Kulkarni which was proved in his evidence and marked as Exhibit – 23. The report discloses that the distance from the National Highway was 1520 metres. There was no cross-examination on the said aspect. Therefore, the acquired land will fall in the 3^rd category fixed by the Division Bench in First Appeal No.753 of 2003. Hence, the market value will be approximately at the rate of Rs. 21/- per sq. metre. However, the claim of the Respondents in the Cross Objection is confined to only Rs.20/- per sq. Metre. Hence, the Cross Objection will have to be allowed.

¶22

Hence, I pass the following order.

fa-28.93andXObjc

ash

(i) The First Appeal No. 28 of 1993 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

¶27

(ii) The Cross Objection Stamp No. 22582 of 1993 is allowed.

¶28

(iii) The market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.20/- per sq. metre ( inclusive of the market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer). In addition, the Respondents will be entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶29

(iv) The Reference Court shall determine the compensation payable in terms of the modified Award within a period of three months from the date on which the writ of the judgment is received by the said Court.

¶30

(v) Time of three months is granted to the State Government to deposit the balance compensation amount from the date on which compensation amount is determined.

¶31

(vi) The Respondents/Original Claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs of the Reference and Cross Objection.

fa-28.93andXObjc

ash

( A.S. OKA, J )

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri.Gopal Ganu Shelke and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri.Gopal Ganu Shelke and Anr.

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

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs 1. Kisan Namdeo Shinde and Another

M/S Sonia Enterprises and Others Vs Jubliant Organosys Ltd.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vitthal Nivrutti Nhane andORS.

Aba Hariba Chavan Vs Satyanarayan Panalal Mandhane

The State of Maharashtra Vs the Miraj Municipality, Miraj and Another

The State of Maharashtra Vs M/S Siemens India Ltd.