Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Dattu Hasha Mhatre And Ors on 27 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:3819
XOB(st) No. 7215 of 2008f.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CROSS OBJECTION (St.) NO. 7215 OF 2008
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2007
The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ]
Metro Centre No.1, Panvel, Tal: Panvel, District : ]
Raigad. ] ...Appellant.
Versus
1. Shri Dattu Hasha Mhatre ]
Age : Adult, Occ: Agriculturist ]
2. Shri Kanha Hasha Mhatre ]
Age : 42 years, Occ.: Agriculturist ]
3 Shri Parshuram Hasha Mhatre ]
Age : 48 years, Occ.: Agriculturist ]
4 Smt. Ambi Hasha Mhatre ]
Age : 35 years, Occ.: Agriculturist ]
All R/o: Dhakta Khanda ]
Tal: Panvel ]
5 Smt. Nagubai Krishna Bhandari ]
Age: 45 years, Occ.: Household ]
R/o: Aadai, Taluka: Panvel ]
6. Smt. Kamlibai Narayan Mhatre ]
Age : 66 years, Occ.: Household ]
R/o: Kamothe, Taluka: Panvel ]
7. Smt. Baymabai Dhaya Patil ]
Age: 55 years, Occ.: Household ]
R/o: Valavali, Taluka: Panvel ]
District: Raigad ] ...Respondents.
------------
Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for Appellant-State.
Mr. Suresh M. Kamble for Respondent Nos.1 to 7.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : 17th January, 2025.
Pronounced on : 27th January, 2025.
Sairaj 1 of 7
XOB(st) No. 7215 of 2008f.doc
Judgment :
1. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and award dated
22nd January, 2003 passed by the Reference Court determining the
compensation in respect of the Appellant's land which is land bearing
Survey No. 538, Hissa No.4 admeasuring 0.57.7 situated at Mouje
Panvel, Taluka -Panvel, District - Raigad.
2. The facts of the case are that the land came to be acquired
pursuant to the notification under Section 4 issued in the year 1983 for
the purpose of planned development of New Bombay Project in order
to reduce the pressure of population and traffic on the existing
Bombay city and its suburbs and with a view to develop urban centres,
which will contribute to the growth of the economy of Maharashtra
State. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in
respect of the acquired land at the rate of 1.50 paise per sq. mtrs. by
Award dated 14th January, 1985. Being dissatisfied, the original
Claimants preferred Application under Section 28-A of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 for enhancement of compensation without filing an
Application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for
short, "L.A. Act"], based on the judgment of the District Judge in L.A.R.
No. 25 of 1983. Vide the impugned judgment and award, Reference
Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28/- per sq. metre after
deducting compensation already paid along with amount at the rate of
Sairaj 2 of 7
XOB(st) No. 7215 of 2008f.doc
12 % per annum on the market value from the date of notification till
the date of award or taking possession whichever is earlier and 30%
solatium, in addition to market value. The Reference Court also
ordered to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year
from the date of taking possession and thereafter, at the rate of 15 %
p.a. till the realization of excess amount. The present Appeal seeks
enhancement of compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for Appellant would submit that the
Reference Court has not appreciated the evidence of the expert
examined on behalf of the Claimants who had suggested the market
rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. metre. He submits that the Reference Court has
not appreciated the fact that the acquired land is situated at prime
location being close to Bombay-Pune highway and the land is having
facility of electricity, water supply and transportation. He submits that
there are many industries in close vicinity of Panvel city and therefore,
the prices of lands in Panvel are increasing rapidly and the same are
required to be taken into consideration while determining the market
value. He submits that the acquired land was having N.A. potentiality,
which has also not been considered.
4. Mr. Patil, learned AGP submits that the Application was filed
under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act based on the judgment
of the District Judge in L.A.R. No. 25/83. However, the judgment was
Sairaj 3 of 7
XOB(st) No. 7215 of 2008f.doc
not produced. He submits that before the Reference Court, neither the
Claimants nor the opponents filed any sale instances on the record to
show the market value of the land prevailing in the said area. He
submits that the Reference Court has considered the judgment in
other Reference cases where the lands involved in references were for
New Bombay Project and of Taluka - Panvel. He submits that based on
the material on record, the Reference Court has awarded the
compensation of Rs. 28 per sq. metre, which is the fair market value.
5. The following point arises for determination:
(i) Do the Claimants establish that they are entitled to rate of Rs. 50
per square mtr. in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 538, Hissa
No.4 acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Navi
Mumbai Project.
As to the Point No.(i):
6. In support of their claim, the Claimants have examined one of
the Claimants being A.W.-1 and an expert witness Manohar Vaidya as
A.W. -2. The documents which were produced on record were the
valuation report, map and certified copies of judgment in other
reference cases. The area which is acquired is not in dispute, what has
been disputed is the compensation awarded to Appellants. The expert
witness-A.W. 2 has deposed that he visited the acquired land on 20 th
February, 2001 and that the acquired land was having supply of water
Sairaj 4 of 7
XOB(st) No. 7215 of 2008f.doc
and electricity, and hospital, markets, schools and colleges were
available in close vicinity. He has further deposed that National
Highway is passing near the acquired land and that the land was
suitable for N.A. purposes. He has further deposed that for the
purpose of determining the market value of the land, he has taken into
consideration some sale and lease instances as well as Court awards
and had given an opinion that the market value of acquired land on the
date of notification would be Rs. 60/- per sq. metre.
7. From the evidence of AW-1 as well as AW-2, it is established that
the acquired land had all the necessary facilities in nearby vicinity. The
land under reference is within the municipal limits of Panvel which was
at that point of time, witnessing speedy industrial development.
Neither the Claimants nor the Respondents have placed on record any
equivalent sale instances to show the market rate which was prevailing
at that time in the said area. Pertinently, the Application is stated to
have been filed for enhancement of compensation under Section 28(3)
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with redetermination of
amount of compensation on the basis of Award of the Court. Perusal of
the judgment of the Reference Court would indicate that the
Application came to be filed based on the judgment of the Reference
Court in L.A.R. No. 25 of 1983. However, the said judgment was not
placed on record by Claimants.
Sairaj 5 of 7
XOB(st) No. 7215 of 2008f.doc
8. In the absence of any equivalent sale instances produced by
either of the parties, the Reference Court has taken into consideration,
the judgments passed in L.A.R. No. 14/88, L.A.R. No. 199/86 and
judgment in L.A.R. NO. 726/87. The lands involved in all the references
taken into consideration by the Reference Court were for New Bombay
Project from Panvel Taluka and accordingly, the same were used for
the purpose of determining the fair market value of the land under
reference. The Reference Court has noted that in L.A.R. No. 110/89,
the lands which were involved were from Panvel itself, and after
considering, the factors required to be considered under Section 23 of
the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court has determined the fair
market value of Rs. 28/- per sq. metre.
9. In Trishal Jain vs. State of Uttaranchal1, the Apex Court
accepted that recourse to guesswork for determining the fair market
value of the land and the consequential amount of compensation
required to be paid to the persons interested in the acquired land is
inevitable. In the present case, for determining the fair market value,
the Reference Court has considered the relevant factors and the
Awards passed by the Reference Court in respect of similarly situated
land. Although, reliance was placed on the judgment in L.A.R. No.
110/89, in which the compensation was ranging from Rs. 25/- to Rs.
1 2011 (6) SCC 47.
Sairaj 6 of 7
XOB(st) No. 7215 of 2008f.doc
35/- per sq. metre, considering the distance of land from highway, in
the present case, the Reference Court has objectively estimated the
compensation at Rs. 28/- per sq. metre. Before this Court, there is no
material which is demonstrated to show that the compensation which
has been awarded by the Reference Court is inadequate based on the
evidence which is produced on record.
10. The burden is upon the claimants to place sufficient material on
record to establish that the rate offered by Special Land Acquisition
Officer is inadequate and once that is done, the onus to the certain
extent shifts upon the State acquiring land. One of the accepted
modes for determination of fair market value of the acquired land is
equivalent sales method. However, in the present case, there is no
material which has been placed by either of the parties and therefore,
the Reference Court based on the evidence which has come on record
has rightly determined the amount of compensation.
11. In light of the above, Point No.1 is answered against the
Claimants. Resultantly, Cross Objection stands dismissed.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 7 of 7
