Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Dattatraya Shankar Keni (Lrs) 1 Ramubai Dattatraya Keni and Othrs

Bombay HC20 Aug 2015FA/1426/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment modifies land acquisition awards by fixing the market value at Rs. 1,725 per sq. metre following a precedent. The Court allowed amendments to claims regarding compensation rates, confirmed the 60% entitlement, and directed the Reference Court to compute the final compensation within four months, granting costs to claimants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned awards modified to fix market value at Rs. 1,725/sq. metre plus statutory benefits; Claims allowed to proceed at enhanced rate; CIDCO impleadment rejected.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Shankar Keni (Lrs) 1… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

FA 207-210-223

1/12

Chittewan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.1426 OF 2008 IN L.A.R. No.800 of 2000

¶6

ALONGWITH CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.16577 OF 2008

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

(Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Center No.3, Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District. Raigad .. Appellant.

¶9

(Orig.Opponent)

¶10

V/s

¶11

1 Dattatraya Shankar Keni (deceased)

¶12

Through Legal Heirs

¶13

1/1. Ramubai Dattatraya Keni, 60 years

¶14

1/2. Prakash Dattatraya Keni, 35 years

¶15

1/3. Pravin Dattatraya Keni, 27 years

¶16

1/4 Nisha Dattatraya Keni, 25 years All R/o. Chinchpada, Tal. Panvel Dist. Raigad

.. Respondents

(Orig. Claimants)

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4431 OF 2011

¶21

¶22

FIRST APPEAL NO.1426 OF 2008

¶23

State of Maharashtra

¶24

Through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel .. Appellant

¶25

¶26

1 Dattatraya Shankar Keni (deceased)

¶27

FA 207-210-223

¶28

Chittewan 2/12 FA 207-210-223 Through Legal Heirs 1/1. Ramubai Dattatraya Keni, 60 years 1/2. Prakash Dattatraya Keni, 35 years 1/3. Pravin Dattatraya Keni, 27 years 1/4 Nisha Dattatraya Keni, 25 years All R/o. Chinchpada, Tal. Panvel Dist. Raigad .. Respondents 2 City Industrial & Development Corporation, CBD, Belapur .. Applicant (Intervener)

¶29

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2014 IN CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO.16577 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1426 OF 2008 IN L.A.R. NO.800 OF 2000

¶30

Dattatraya Shankar Keni since deceased through Legal representatives

¶31

1. Ramubai Dattatraya Keni

¶32

1. Prakash Dattatraya Keni

¶33

1. Pravin Dattatraya Keni

¶34

1. Nisha Santosh Patil Knee Nisha Dattatraya Keni All residing at Chinchpada, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad .. Applicants.

¶35

In the matter between :-

¶36

The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition

¶37

Chittewan 3/12 FA 207-210-223 Officer, Metro Centre No.3, Panvel, District. Raigad) .. Appellant. (Org.Opponent)

¶38

V/s Dattatraya Shankar Keni Since deceased through Legal Representatives

¶39

1. Ramubai Dattatraya Keni

¶40

1. Prakash Dattatraya Keni

¶41

1. Pravin Dattatraya Keni

¶42

1. Nisha Santosh Patil Knee Nisha Dattatraya Keni All residing at Chinchpada, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad .. Respondents

¶43

Mr. A.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant in First Appeal No.4431 of 2011.

¶44

Mr. Sachin S. Punde for the Respondents in First Appeal No.1426 of 2008 and for the Applicants in Civil Application No.131 of 2014.

¶45

None for the Applicant in Civil Application No.4431 of 2011.

¶46

AND

¶47

FIRST APPEAL NO.1929 OF 2008

¶48

Hanuman Vilas Kini since deceased through his Legal Representatives

¶49

1/1 Anjana Hanuman Keni

¶50

1/2 Abhijit Hanuman Keni

¶51

1/3 Amol Hanuman Keni

¶52

1/4 Amruta Hanuman Keni

¶53

Ramubai Vilas Keni

¶54

Chittewan 4/12 FA 207-210-223 3. Anubai Vilas Keni 4. Yadav Vilas Keni 5. Anita Vilas Keni 6. Taibai Balu Keni since deceased through her Legal Representatives 6/1 Kisan Balu Keni 6/2 Joma Balu Keni 6/3 Govind Balu Keni All residing at Chinchpada Taluka Panvel, District Raigad .. Appellants V/s The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.3, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad .. Respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1931 OF 2008

¶55

1 Kisan Balu Keni 2 Joma Balu Keni 3 Govind Balu Keni 5 Hanuman Vilas Keni since deceased through his Legal Representatives

¶56

5/1 Anjana Hanuman Keni 5/2 Abhijit Hanuman Keni 5/3 Amol Hanuman Keni 5/4 Amruta Hanuman Keni 6 Ramubai Vilas Keni 7 Yadav Vilas Keni 8 Anita Vilas Keni All residing at Chinchpada Taluka Panvel, District Raigad

¶57

9 Ambibai Vilas Keni

¶58

Chittewan 5/12 FA 207-210-223 Residing at Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District. Raigad .. Appellants

¶59

V/s The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.3, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. .. Respondent

¶60

Mr. Sachin S. Punde for Appellants in First Appeal No.1929 of 2008 and First Appeal No.1931 of 2008. Mr. A.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent/State in First Appeal No.1929 of 2008 and First Appeal No.1931 of 2008.

¶61

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶62

K.R. SHRIRAM, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2015.

¶63

JUDGMENT :

¶64

. These appeals can be disposed of by a common

¶65

judgment. These three appeals arise out of judgment and Award made by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibaug, District Raigad in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.800 of 2000,

¶66

745 of 2000 and 746 of 2000 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the said Act'). The lands the subject matter of the acquisition are situated at Village Wadghar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad.

¶67

Chittewan 6/12 FA 207-210-223

¶68

2 The lands the subject matter of these appeals were notified for acquisition under the Notification dated 24 September 1986 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act for the public purpose of setting up the city of New Bombay. The Claimants before the Reference Court did not accept the Awards made under Section 11 of the said Act and therefore, preferred applications for making references under Section 18 of the said Act. As far as the First Appeal No.1426 of 2008 is concerned, the Reference Court granted the market value at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. metre by the impugned Award. In First Appeal No.1929 of 2008, the same market value was fixed by the Reference Court. Even in the impugned Award which is the the subject matter of First Appeal No.1929 of 2008, the market value at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. metre was fixed. In case of the impugned Awards in all the three appeals, the statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act were granted. Under the impugned Award subject matter in First Appeal No.1931 of 2008, the Reference Court

¶69

Chittewan 7/12 FA 207-210-223

¶70

held that the Claimants were entitled to 60% of the compensation amount.

¶71

3 First Appeal No.1426 of 2008 is preferred by the State Government for challenging the Judgment and Award in Land Acquisition Reference No.800 of 2000. The Claimants have filed Cross Objection seeking enhancement. In this appeal, Civil Application No.131 of 2014 has been preferred by the Claimants for permitting the amendment of the claim in the Cross Objection for the purpose of claiming the market value at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq. metre. As far as this Civil Application is concerned, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in a decision in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra¹ , the prayer made therein will have to be allowed. There is another civil application being Civil Application No.4431 of 2011 made by the City Industrial & Development Corporation, CBD Belapur for a direction to implead it as a party respondent. In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, which has attained finality, the CIDCO is not 1 (2011) 9 SCC 325

¶72

Chittewan

¶73

8/12 FA 207-210-223

¶74

acquiring body of the lands subject matter of the acquisition. Hence, the said Application will have to be rejected.

¶75

4 First Appeal No. 1929 of 2008 has been preferred by the legal representatives of the original Claimant for challenging the Judgment and Award dated 20^th January 2007 in Land Acquisition Reference No.745 of 2000. The Appellants are claiming the market value at the rate Rs.2,000/- per sq. metre. First Appeal No.1931 of 2008 takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 20^th January 2007 in Land Acquisition Reference No.746 of 2000 wherein the Appellants are claiming market value at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq. metre.

¶76

5 There is no dispute between the parties that these three appeals will be governed by the Judgement and Order dated 2^nd and 6^th July 2015 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1310 of 2005 and other connected appeals. In view of the said decision, the market value will have to be fixed at the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq. metre.

¶77

Chittewan 9/12 FA 207-210-223

¶78

6 Hence, for the reasons recorded in the said Judgement and Order, we dispose of all the three appeals by passing the following order.

¶79

: O R D E R :

¶80

(A) First Appeal No.1931 of 2008 and First Appeal No.1929 of 2008 are partly allowed. First Appeal No.1426 of 2008 is dismissed with no order as to costs. Cross Objection (St.) No.16577 of 2008 is partly allowed;

¶81

(B) The impugned Awards are modified by directing that the Claimants will be entitled to the market value in respect of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1725/- per sq. metre. In addition to the 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;

¶82

¶83

(D) The Claimants will be entitled to proportionate costs throughout in First Appeal No.1929 of 2008, First Appeal

¶84

Chittewan 10/12 FA 207-210-223

¶85

No.1931 of 2008 and Cross Objection (St.) No.16577 of 2008;

¶86

(E) Reference Court shall carry out the exercise of computation of the amount of the total compensation payable in terms of modified Awards within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of writ of this judgment alongwith the Record and Proceedings;

¶87

(F) Before arriving at the final computation of the compensation payable in terms of modified Awards, the Reference Court shall give an opportunity of being heard to the State of Maharashtra;

¶88

(G) The amount payable to the Claimants shall be deposited by the State Government with the Reference Court within a period of four months from the date on which compensation amount is determined by the Reference Court;

¶89

(H) Civil Application No.4431 of 2011 is rejected;

¶90

(I) Civil Application No.131 of 2014 is allowed in terms of prayer -(A). Amendments be carried out within a period of eight weeks from today;

¶91

Chittewan 11/12 FA 207-210-223

¶92

(J) Deficit court fees on the Cross Objection shall be paid within eight weeks from today;

¶93

(K) The Decree in Cross Objection (St.) No. 16577 of 2008 shall not be drawn, unless the amendment is carried out and deficit Court fees is paid;

¶94

(L) Records and Proceedings of these appeals alongwith the writ be expeditiously forwarded to the Reference Court.

¶95

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

12/12

Chittewan

FA 207-210-223

C E R T I F I C A T E

¶100

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order.

The State of Maharashtra v. Dattatraya Shankar Keni (Lrs) 1 Ramubai Dattatraya Keni and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Dattatraya Shankar Keni (Lrs) 1 Ramubai Dattatraya Keni and Othrs

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

M/S. B. J. Development Corporation and Another Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Others

Shri Prashant Vichare Vs Themunicipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Throug Asstt. Municipal Commissioner

Sushila Co.Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Naraindas Parmanad Sanatorium Trust Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 22 Ors.

Nevitad Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary (State Excise) and Ors.

Aramex India Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.