Bombay High Court
Shri Chahu Mangalya Mhatre And Ors vs The Spl.Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 18 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:12452
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 37 OF 1997.
1. Shri. Chahu Mangalya Mhatre ]
2. Shri. Bhagwan Mangalya Mhatre ]
3. Shri. Raghunath Mangalya Mhatre ]
4. Shri. Vishnu Mangalya Mhatre ]
5. Smt. Radhabai Mangalya Mhatre (deceased) ]
[Amendment carried out as per Court's ]
order ] ]
6. Kum. Nirmal Mangalya Mhatre ]
7. Smt. Sonabai alias Bhagubai Sitaram Phadke, ]
Since deceased, through her ]
Legal Representatives ]
(7.1) Ravindra Sitaram Phadke ]
Age :- 49 years ]
Residing at House No. 205, ]
Vihighar, Nere, District Raigad. ]
(7/2) Jyoti Deepak Patil ]
Age : 44 years ]
Residing at House No. 198 B, ]
Kopra Gaon, Kharghar, District Raigad ]
(7/3) Gulab Dashrath Mhatre ]
Age : 54 years ]
Residing at, House No. 42 ]
Sector - 13, Kharghar Gaon, District ]
Raigad ]
(7/4) Narayan Sitaram Phadke ]
Age : 57 years ]
Residing at, 885, Vihighar, Nere, District ]
Raigad. ] ...Appellants.
Versus
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ]
Metro Centre, No. I, Panvel ] ...Respondent.
Sairaj 1 of 20
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2025 22:24:25 :::
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
------------
Mr. Sachin S. Punde, Mr. Suraj B. Jadhav for Appellant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : 28th January, 2025.
Pronounced on : 18th March, 2025.
Judgment :
1. The First Appeal arises out of acquisition proceedings in respect
of land situated at Village - Asudgaon, Panvel, District: Raigad. The
Notice for Acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [for short, "L. A. Act"] was issued on 3rd February, 1970, and
published in the Government Gazette on 4 th February, 1970. The lands
came to be acquired for the development of Navi Mumbai Project. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs.
3/- per sq. metre, which was received by the Claimants under protest
and reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act was filed before the
Reference Court, Raigad at Alibaug. The Reference Court after
considering the evidence and arguments of the parties awarded Rs.
11.50/- per sq. metre along with statutory benefits. The Claimants
being dissatisfied by the enhancement, preferred the present First
Appeal.
2. It is contended by Mr. Punde, learned counsel appearing for
Sairaj 2 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
Appellants that the lands which were acquired under notification dated
3rd February, 1970 formed the subject-matter of various appeals which
reached up to the Apex Court. He submits that the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Smt. Kamali Keshav
Mhatre1 applied the distance criteria for the purpose of fixing the
market value. Pointing out to Paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment, he
said that the Division Bench divided the lands according to the distance
from the National Highway into three groups, the first group was in
respect of the land situated within 750 metres of the National
Highway, which was awarded market value of Rs. 28/-, the second
group consisting of land situated between 750 and 1500 sq. metres
was awarded the market value of Rs. 26/-, and the third group which
included the lands beyond 1500 sq. metres was awarded the market
value of Rs. 21/-. He submits that if the distance criteria is applied to
the present case, the report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer
would indicate that the present land is about 1560 metres away from
Bombay-Poona Highway, to its eastern side is about 2120 metres away
from Panvel S.T. stand and about 2400 metres away from Panvel railway
station. It is on Eastern side of Diwa-Panvel railway line, but 300 metres
away from it. He submits that applying the distance criteria in the
present case would fix the market value at Rs. 21/- per sq. metre.
1 2005(1) ALL MR 459.
Sairaj 3 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
3. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of Sabhia
Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (dead) by LRs vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer2 noted in respect of the lands acquired under the
same notification of Village Ambetarkhar (Roadpali), Taluka - Panvel,
Raigad that the High Court in that case has reduced the amount of
compensation by mechanically applying distance criteria. He submits
that the Apex Court in that case awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs. 25/- per sq. metre. He submits that the Village - Asudgaon is close
to Village - Roadpalli and hence, the rate of Rs. 25/- which is fixed can
also be applied. He submits that whether by applying distance criteria
or by applying the rate determined for Village - Roadpalli, the
compensation is required to be enhanced.
4. He submits that similarly, in the case of Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi
vs. State of Maharashtra3, the Apex Court by order dated 2 nd July,
2013 referred to the decision in the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf
Abdul Hamid Mulla (supra) and held that keeping in view the large
number of judgments and orders passed by the High Court in relation
to the acquisition of similar parcels of land whereby the market value
of acquired land was fixed at Rs. 25/- per sq. metre, it must be held that
Appellant is entitled to similar relief and had granted compensation at
the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. metre.
2 (2012) 7 SCC 595.
Sairaj 4 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
5. He submits that the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manohar Mukund Patil (since deceased),
through LRs4, in the group of First Appeals, by judgment dated 22 nd
September, 2016, involving the acquisition of land under the same
notification had granted compensation of Rs. 25/- per square metre.
6. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar5 had applied the
distance criteria and had granted compensation of Rs. 21/- per sq.
metre in respect of land falling beyond 1500 metres of the National
Highway.
7. Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned AGP would submit that the
Reference Court has considered that the lands are not having similar
advantages which the lands under the judgment shown in map
produced before the Reference Court possess. He further points out
that the Reference Court observed that these lands are away from the
National Highway and are to eastern side of railway line. For approach,
railway crossing is essential and that the facility of water, electricity,
road have not reached near to land. He further points out the
observation of Reference Court that the area is not fully developed
and that large area of undeveloped lands was acquired and provision
has to be made for providing amenities of town life for which the
4 First Appeal No. 1954 of 2005 dtd. 22nd September, 2016.
5 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 537.
Sairaj 5 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
Reference Court had deducted 25%. He submits that in the case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Manohar Mukund Patil (supra), it was
brought on record that the Village Koli-Kopar is adjacent to village
Wadghar and enjoyed the same amenities, same facilities, same
benefits like that of village Wadghar, and therefore, the compensation
at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. metre was awarded. He submits that
given the findings of the Reference Court even if the rate of Rs. 25/-
per sq. metre is applied, there has to be deduction of one-third as the
lands were not fully developed. He submits that in the other
judgments, the negative factors were not there.
8. In Rejoinder, learned counsel appearing for Appellants would
fairly concede that proceedings being old proceedings, record and
proceedings do not contain any evidence and is therefore, unable to
make any submission as regards the finding of area being developed or
undeveloped.
9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, the issue arising
for determination is whether the compensation granted by Reference
Court is required to be further enhanced.
10. This Court is faced with handicap of absence of evidence as the
proceedings are of the year 1997 and this Court will have to rely on the
observations made by the Reference Court in the impugned Judgment
and Award dated 29th April, 1995 as regards the acquired land.
Sairaj 6 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
11. It is undisputed that vast number of lands of about 95 villages
from districts of Raigad and Thane, came to be notified for the purpose
of setting the satellite city of New Bombay and have been subject-
matter of various proceedings which reached the Apex Court. The
present acquisition is from Village Asudgaon in Taluka - Panvel and it is
submitted that Village - Asudgaon is near Village Roadpalli, which is
not disputed by Mr. Patil.
12. It would be worthwhile to refer to the decision of Division Bench
of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Smt. Kamali Keshav Mhatre
(supra). The Division Bench noted the earlier Division Bench's
Judgment in First Appeal No. 382 of 1984, which was in respect of land
acquired from Panvel Village, Asudgaon Village, Khamote Village and
Kalamboli Village. The Court in First Appeal No. 382 of 1984 noted the
following:
"...Panvel is located on the Bombay-Pune National Highway,
where the lands have acquired non-agricultural potentialities.
It had become a centre for local trade and commerce. It is also
a place for Taluka headquarter having a Municipality for a very
long time. The lands under acquisition are in the extended
Municipal area, which is quite adjacent and practically
encircling Panvel Town which has commercial activities and
educational facilities. The Bombay-Pune Road and Diva-Panvel
railway pass through this area. At a short distance to the east
of Bombay-Pune National Highway within the extended
municipal limits lies the Industrial Estate where 35 factories
are located. There is also a Co-operative Housing Society
called Cosmopolitan Co-operative Society which has
purchased lands for construction of houses for its members.
Abutting the National Highway at some distance to the north
of the Industrial estate is the factory of Jenson & Nicholson in
existence for over six years prior to the notification under
Section 4. A few years prior to the present acquisition, lands
Sairaj 7 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
had been acquired for the S.T. bus stand, chowkidars' quarters
and so on. To the south of the acquired area is the junction of
the two National Highways viz. Bombay, Pune and Bombay-
Konkan-Goa road, hardly at a distance of two kms., proceeding
to the north there is the junction of two major highways viz.
Bombay-Pune Highway and Sion-Pune Highway.
13. The Court in Kamali Keshav Mhatre (supra) while maintaining
the basic principles followed by the other Division Benches did not
depart from the market value fixed and grouped the lands as per their
distance from National Highway and fixed the market values
accordingly.
14. In the present case, the Award notes that the acquired lands are
hardly at a distance of 1.5 kms from Bombay Pune Highway and about
2 to 2.5 kms from Panvel S.T stand and railway station, which denotes
good railway and road connectivity. The other advantages which were
noted by the Division Bench applies to the present case as Village
Asudgaon formed the consideration of the Division Bench's judgment
in First Appeal No. 382 of 1984.
15. The acquisition of lands from various villages for the same
notification and same Navi Mumbai project reached the Apex Court in
various appeals. In the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid
Mulla (supra), the Apex Court considered the determination of market
value in respect of land acquired of Village - Roadpali (Kolhekar)
Village, Panvel Taluka, Raigad District, which was also acquired under
the said notification of 3rd February, 1970. In that case, the State
Sairaj 8 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
Government had appealed against the award of Reference Court on
the ground that the acquired land was undeveloped and used for
agricultural purpose and that Reference Court had overlooked the
distance criteria followed by the High Court. The High Court accepted
the plea and reduced the amount of compensation and also applied
15% towards development charges. The Apex Court held that
Reference Court had rightly taken into consideration the relevant
factors and High Court had not averted to the factors and had reduced
the compensation by mechanically applying the distance criteria, which
was not sustained. The Apex Court held that land owners at Village -
Roadpali (Kolhekar) are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/-
per sq. metre as granted by the Reference Court .
16. The Apex Court in Paragraph Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the
judgment held as under:-
16. We have considered the respective arguments and
carefully perused the record. It is settled law that while fixing
market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition
Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors:
(i) Existing geographical situation of the land.
(ii) Existing use of the land.
(iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National
or State Highway or road and/or developed area.
(iv) Market value of other land situated in the same
locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the
acquired land.
17. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4
SCC 789], this Court laid down the following principles for
determination of market value of the acquired land: (SCC pp.
796-97, paras 17-21)
"17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to
Sairaj 9 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
be considered in determining the compensation; the principal
among which is the determination of the market value of the
land on the date of the publication of the notification under
sub-section (1) of Section 4.
18. One of the principles for determination of the amount
of compensation for acquisition of land would be the
willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It
is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing
and informed buyer would offer would be different in the
cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the
property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may
fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected
by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite
material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of
similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of
notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale
instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with
mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be
identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as
well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the
market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment
has to be made having regard to various positive and negative
factors vis-à-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in
juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) Largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) Situation in the interior
at a distance from the
road
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) Narrow strip of land with
very small frontage
compared to depth
(iv) nearness to developed area (iv) Lower level requiring the
depressed portion to be
filled up
(v) regular shape (v) Remoteness from
developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under(vi) Some special
acquisition disadvantageous factors
which would deter a
purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner of
an adjoining property to
whom it may have some very
special advantage
21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of
many, a large block of land will have to be developed
preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open
Sairaj 10 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and
the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges
may range between 20% and 50% of the total price."
18. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana [(2008) 2 SCC 568], the
Court held:
"4. In order to determine the compensation which the
tenure-holders are entitled to get for their land which has
been acquired, the main question to be considered is what is
the market value of the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays
down what the court has to take into consideration while
Section 24 lays down what the court shall not take into
consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of
the enquiry before the court is to determine the market value
of the land acquired. The expression "market value" has been
the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several
cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser
would pay to a willing seller for the property having due
regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages
and its potential possibilities when led out in most
advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to
carrying out of the scheme for which the property is
compulsorily acquired. In considering market value
disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the
urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be
disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of
hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a
purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as
a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious
dealing at arm's length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale
brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the
market value. The determination of market value is the
prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of
hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. (See
Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [(1976) 3 SCC 772], Prithvi
Raj Taneja v. State of M.P. [(1977) 1 SCC 684], Administrator
General of W.B. v. Collector [(1988) 2 SCC 150] and Periyar &
Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(1991) 4 SCC 195].
5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the
potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into
consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for
changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled
that market value of a property has to be determined having
due regard to its existing condition with all its existing
advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its
most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has
potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon
its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably
capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial
or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like
water, electricity, possibility of their further extension,
Sairaj 11 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
whether near about town is developing or has prospect of
development have to be taken into consideration. (See
Collector v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur [(1979) 1 SCC 236], Raghubans
Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt. and Administrator General of W.B. v.
Collector [(1988) 2 SCC 150]. It has been held in Kausalya Devi
Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer [(1984) 2 SCC 324] and Suresh
Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust [(1989) 2 SCC 329] that
failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is an
error of principle."
19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is
undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally
approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards
development cost except when no development is required to
be made for implementation of the public purpose for which
land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC
354], the Court held: (SCC pp. 359-60, para 7)
"7.....It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or
undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or
commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of
compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of
compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain
variations depending on its nature, location, extent of
expenditure involved for development and the area required
for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to
make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land
may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or
hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making
construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a
developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or
may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the
amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the
area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully
developed and nothing more is required to be done for
developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence
that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such
evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a
developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of
the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the
land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not
give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of
land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main
road, the remaining large area where planned development is
required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer,
water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However,
in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by
virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the
percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges
required may be less on that account. There may be various
factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration
Sairaj 12 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards
developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than
1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered
that there is difference between a developed area and an area
having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact
that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will
not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also
developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly
when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development
purpose."
(emphasis supplied)
The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal
Bhojwani v. State of U.P. [(2003) 10 SCC 525], V. Hanumantha
Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer [(2003) 12 SCC 642], H.P.
Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi [(2004) 2 SCC 184] and Kiran
Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority [(2004) 10 SCC
745].
20. In Lal Chand v. Union of India [(2009) 15 SCC 769], the Court
indicated that percentage of deduction for development to be
made for arriving at market value of large tracts of
undeveloped agricultural land with potential for development
can vary between 20% and 75% of the price of developed
plots and observed: (SCC pp. 779-80, paras 14 & 20)
"14. The 'deduction for development' consists of two
components. The first is with reference to the area required to
be utilised for developmental works and the second is the cost
of the development works....
20. Therefore, the deduction for the 'development factor'
to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a
developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land,
will be for more than the deduction with reference to the
price of a small plot in an unauthorised private layout or an
industrial layout. It is also well known that the development
cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the
cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher
overheads and expenditure."
21. In A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy [(2010) 12 SCC
707], the rule of 1/3rd deduction towards development cost
was invoked while determining market value of the acquired
land. In Subh Ram v. State of Haryana [(2010) 1 SCC 444], this
Court held as under:
"24. Deduction of "development cost" is the concept
used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped
land with reference to the "retail price" of a small developed
plot. The difference between the value of a small developed
plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the
"development cost". Two factors have a bearing on the
Sairaj 13 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
quantum (or percentage) of deduction in the "retail price" as
development cost. Firstly, the percentage of deduction is
decided with reference to the extent and nature of
development of the area/layout in which the small developed
plot is situated. Secondly, the condition of the acquired land as
on the date of preliminary notification, whether it was
undeveloped, or partly developed, is considered and
appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of
deduction to take note of the developed status of the
acquired land.
25. The percentage of deduction (development cost
factor) will be applied fully where the acquired land has no
development. But where the acquired land can be considered to
be partly developed (say for example, having good road access or
having the amenity of electricity, water, etc.) then the
development cost (that is, percentage of deduction) will be
modulated with reference to the extent of development of the
acquired land as on the date of acquisition . But under no
circumstances, will the future use or purpose of acquisition
play a role in determining the percentage of deduction
towards development cost."
(emphasis supplied)
17. In Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi vs. State of Maharashtra (supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the same acquisition of the
year 1970 in respect of land situated at Village - Wadghar, Panvel
granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square metre.
18. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Manohar Mukund Patil
(supra), the acquisition was of Village Koli-Kopar and this Court after
considering various decisions of the High Court as well as the Apex
Court held that as and when the lands were found to be virtually
identically situated in the same area, bearing similar topographical and
physical characteristics covered by the same notification dated 3 rd
February, 1970 more or less, the identical market value at the rate of
Sairaj 14 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
Rs. 25/- per sq. metre was fixed mostly in all the References, which
reached either to the High Court or the Apex Court and fixed the rate
of Rs. 25/- per square metre.
19. In the decision of State of Maharashtra vs. Prakash Vasudeo
Deodhar (supra), the compensation was granted by applying the
distance criteria as applied by the Division Bench in the case of Kamali
Keshav Mhatre (supra).
20. Taking note of the various decisions, it is clear that the Courts
have determined the market rate at Rs. 25/- per square metre in
respect of lands acquired from various villages under the notification
of 1970, which is also the notification in the present case.
21. The Special Land Acquisition Officer's report makes it clear that
the acquired lands are hardly about 1.5 to 2.5 kms away from road and
railway connectivity. Village Asudgaon is located in Old Panvel
Municipal Council and the fast-paced development of Panvel has
already been noted in the Division Bench's judgment in First Appeal
No. 382 of 1995 reproduced hereinabove.
22. The impugned judgment does not record any sale instances
being produced of the other villages. It appears that the expert had
prepared the report Exh. 43, Map 43A, topography, earlier awards and
had opined the value at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. metre. The
judgment further records that land was possessing N.A. potentiality.
Sairaj 15 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
The Reference Court further noted that the acquired land is not near
National highway, it is on eastern side of railway line and for using the
land, railway crossing is necessary. In Paragraph Nos. 24 and 25, the
Reference Court noted as under:-
24. Shri Kulkarni has referred few LARs of lands of Asudgaon
but he did not know whether State preferred an appeal or not.
Moreover, certified copies of those judgments are not on
record to examine similarities. Advantages between those
lands and acquired lands. Without those judgments I find
difficult to consider the rate awarded as mentioned in report
Ex.43. In First Appeal No. 2569 of 1983 and 2571 of 1983 High
Court awarded land rate of Rs. 14/- psm in FA. No.94/86 High
Court awarded land rate of Rs.15/- psm. For lands of village
Asudgaon No. judgments are on record. But DGP has no
objection about the land rates awarded by High Court, these
judgments are not under challenge. Location of lands under
these judgment is shown in map Exh.43A. From that I find
these lands are not having similar advantages, benefits which
lands under judgments shown in map possess, these lands are
away from National High Way. Those are to eastern side of
railway line. For approach railway crossing is essential. The
lands are near extended limits of Panvel where facility of
water, electricity, road are not reached near to land. Therefore
I feel value of land as on 3/2/1970 was not less than Rs.15/-
psm.
25. This area is not fully developed. Large area of undeveloped
lands was acquired. Provision has to be made for providing
amenities of town life. The process involves deduction of costs
of factors required to bring those lands on a part of developed
lands. P.W. 1 Wagale stated that 10 to 20% land is required to
be reserved for road, drainage etc. in the case reported in
A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1632 Vijaykumar Motilal vs. State of
Maharashtra deduction of 1/3 rd area made lands acquired
were not fully developed. I in this case seeing location,
situation, and benefits of land deduct 25% so the rate Rs.11-
50 ps psm as market value is reasonable. I accept the same.
Claimant by their conduct also accepted by making judicial
admission.
23. Before this Court, the benefit of the map produced before the
Reference Court is not available as the evidence is missing. However,
Sairaj 16 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
the advantageous location of the Village Asudgaon and the
potentiality of the acquired lands are already noted in the earlier
decision. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabhia Mohammed
Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (supra) has determined the compensation in
case of Village Roadpalli at Rs 25/- per square metre and noted that
the acquired land was in proximity of National Highway-4, and with the
construction of Thane creek bridge, various villages including village
Roadpali (Kolhekar) are close to Mumbai and the civic amenities were
available to Panvel town and industrial estates had been developed at
Taloja and Panvel.
24. The same features qua the location and advantages are available
to the acquired lands of Village Asudgaon as the village is said to be
close to Village Roadpalli, which is not disputed. However, the
impugned judgment notes various negative factors which, in the
absence of evidence on record, learned counsel for Appellants is
unable to establish do not exist in the present case.
25. In the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla
(supra), the Apex Court noted the decision in the case of Atma Singh
vs. State of Haryana6 which had considered the factors for
ascertaining the market value of the land to include the potentiality of
the acquired land as also the existing amenities like water, electricity
6 (2008) 2 SCC 568.
Sairaj 17 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
supply to be taken into consideration. Further, the Apex Court has also
considered in Paragraph No. 19 that in fixing the market value of
acquired land which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the Courts
have generally approved the deduction of one-third of market value
towards development cost except when no development is required to
be made for implementation of public purpose for which land is
acquired. In the present case, the Reference Court has held that the
lands acquired are not having similar advantages, benefits and that the
lands are near the extended municipal limits of Panvel where the
facility of water, electricity, and road are not reached near to land. The
Reference Court has further noted that the area is not fully developed
and the provision has to be made for providing amenities of town life
and a large area of undeveloped land is acquired and applied a
deduction of 25%.
26. Considering the factors as noted by the Apex Court while
determining the amount of compensation, 25% deduction towards
development cost is required to be applied. The Apex Court had
disapproved the mechanical application of distance criteria without
adverting to the positive factors as regards the proximity of highway,
availability of civic amenities and rapid development of Taloja and
Panvel and had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq.
metre.
Sairaj 18 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
27. The lands in the present case are adjacent to extended municipal
limits of Panvel and it has been noted in the various decisions that the
civic amenities were available for Panvel town prior to 1970. In my view,
the market value can be fixed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. metre as
granted by the Apex Court. However, considering the observations of
the Reference Court that the area is not fully developed and large area
of undeveloped lands are acquired and provision has to be made for
providing amenities of town life, 25% deduction will have to be applied
to the market value of 25/- per sq. metre, which will come to about
6.25 per sq. metres. By rounding up the sum at the rate of Rs. 7/-per sq.
metre, the compensation will have to be fixed at Rs. 18/- per sq. metre.
28. Resultantly, Appeals preferred by Claimants are partly allowed
by granting enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per
sq. metre. The State Government is directed to pay the balance amount
of enhanced compensation to the Claimants with all statutory benefits
within a period of four months from the date of passing of this order.
29. On the line of directions given by the Co-ordinate bench, the
following directions are issued:
(i) Within one month from today, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer shall depute an officer subordinate to
him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar or an equivalent
rank, to get in touch with the landowners and/or their
Sairaj 19 of 20
First Appeal No. 37 of 1997 (final).doc
legal representatives and inform them about their
entitlement to receive the balance amount of
compensation.
(ii) The officers concerned shall instruct the landowners
and/or their legal representatives to open a savings bank
account in a nationalized or scheduled bank, in case they
already do not have such an account.
(iii) The account numbers of the landowners and/or their
legal representatives should be furnished by the officer
concerned to the Land Acquisition Officer within a period
of one month.
(iv) Within the next two months, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer shall deposit the amount of
compensation along with other statutory benefits in the
bank accounts of the landowners and/or their legal
representatives in the form of account payee cheques.
30. In view of disposal of First Appeal, nothing survives for
consideration in pending Interim/Civil Applications, if any, and the
same stand disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 20 of 20
