Bombay High Court
Anant Mulya Huddar And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:36934 FA-1545-1547-2002-C1.doc
Digitally
signed by
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KRISHNA NAIK
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
NAIK Date:
2025.09.03
13:44:43
+0530
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1545 OF 2002
1. Shri Anant Mulya Huddar
2. Shri Gurunath Mulya Huddar
3. Smt. Tarabai Mulya Huddar
Since deceased through her Lrs.
3-a) Anant Mulya Huddar
3-b) Gurunath Mulya Huddar ...Appellants
(Original Claimants)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
(Original Opponent)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1547 OF 2002
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10594 OF 2025
1. Shri Rama Ambo Huddar
(since deceased) through Lrs
1/A. Bamibai Rama Huddar
1/B. Sunita Ramesh Mhatre
1/C. Sanjay Rama Huddar
1/D. Vijay Rama Huddar
1/E. Ajay Rama Huddar
1/F. Dhananjay Rama Huddar
1/G. Anita Milind Kadav
2. Smt. Barkubai Ambaji Pethkar
3. Smt. Janabai Nama Mhatre ...Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. City and Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. ...Respondents
****
Mr. Suresh M. Kamble for Appellants in both Appeals.
Mr. A.R. Patil, Addl. G.P. for Respondnet-State in both appeals.
Mr. G.S. Hegde, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms. P. M. Bhansali & Ms. Dharini
Jain, for Respondent-CIDCO in both appeals.
CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.
DATED : 2nd SEPTEMBER 2025
AKN Page 1 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:19:06 :::
FA-1545-1547-2002-C1.doc
JUDGMENT :
1. First Appeal No. 1545 of 2002 & 1547 of 2002 are filed
challenging Judgment and Award passed in L.A.R.No. 103 of 1994
and 105 of 1994 respectively, by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel
under common Judgment dated 12.01.2000, by which said land
references were dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Appellants' claim is arising out of a reference under section
28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the said Act" for short).
The reference was dismissed under impugned judgment as barred by
limitation. The above appeals were initially heard by this Court and
by a common judgment dated 12.10.2011, the appeals were
dismissed, confirming that reference is barred by limitation.
3. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the Appellants that
these Appeals, however stand restored for consideration on merits,
in view of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.07.2017
passed in group of Appeals, whereby it is directed that the present
Appellants are to be treated similarly with other claimants, whose
references were allowed. Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for the
Respondent - CIDCO and learned Additional Government Pleader did
not dispute this position that Appeals are to be heard and disposed of
on merits.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Learned counsel Mr. Kamble has relied upon the judgment of
this Court in First Appeal No.604 of 1995 in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar and bunch of other first
appeals (order dated 12.06.2008) to submit that since the subject
matter lands in question in the present appeals are covered under
FA-1545-1547-2002-C1.doc
same notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act dated
03.02.1970, the rate fixed in paragraph 17(a), 17(b) and 17(c)
thereof based on distance criteria be applied to the present case also.
5. He pointed out that in the present common impugned
judgment, the lands are already sub-divided into 4 groups. He
submitted in group-I lands, which are very close to railway station
and Panvel-Matheran State highway are held entitled to have value to
the extent of Rs.27/- per sq. mtr. and group-II & III lands which are
abutting Mumbai-Pune highway within 300 mtr. and 1000 mtr.
respectively are held entitled to have value of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr and
Rs.22/- per sq. mtr. respectively. He further submits that lands which
are at distance beyond 1000 mtr. from Mumabi-Pune highway are
held entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.18/- per sq. mtr. Under
Group-IV.
6. Pointing out that some sub-divisions of same survey Nos.667,
580 & 578 are falling in group-II & III, it is submitted that the other
sub-divisions of same survey numbers, which are subject matter of
the present appeals, can be safely held to be falling within 300 mtr.
and 1000 mtr. group and accordingly similar rates of Rs.25/- &
Rs.22/- can be awarded. He submits that for such survey numbers
regarding which there is no evidence of distance in the form of
existing groups or otherwise, the compensation @ Rs.21/- per sq.
mtr. as directed in the judgment of Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar (supra)
can be applied.
7. On the other hand, learned senior Advocate Mr. Hegde for
CIDCO and learned Addl. G.P. Mr. Patil for the State has submitted
that in a given case, the sub-division of same survey number may be
at larger distance than the other sub-division and therefore mere fact
that the sub-division belongs to same survey number cannot be taken
FA-1545-1547-2002-C1.doc
as evidence of distance to apply same rates from the groups already
made. It is submitted that for all sub-divisions of subject matter
survey numbers, where there is no evidence about the distance, rate
of Rs.21/- per sq. mtr. as per category (c) made by this Court in
Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar (supra) falling beyond 1500 mtr. from
National Highway, must be applied.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
8. I have considered the submissions and perused the record and
the judgment relied upon by the parties.
9. Admittedly all the subject matter lands are covered by the
same section 4 notification as involved in the case of Prakash Vasudeo
Deodhar (supra). Therefore the basis, really is distance wise
application of rates as per said Judgment. In said judgment, this
Court has held entitlement as follows :
"17. The Claimants would be entitled to compensation for
acquisition of their lands as under :-
(a) Lands falling within 750 metres of the National Highway -
Rs.25/- per sq. metre.
(b) Land falling within 750 to 1500 metres of the National Highway
- Rs.23/- per sq. metre.
(c) Land falling beyond 1500 metres of the National Highway -
Rs.21/- per sq. metre."
10. From the impugned Judgment, group-wise proximity to
Railway Station or Panvel-Matheran State Highway or Mumbai-Pune
Highway, of other sub-divisions/hissa of various survey numbers is
already decided by the Reference Court. The same can be safely
considered. The only question is whether same distance as found for
a sub-division/hissa can be applied to other sub-division / hissa also.
FA-1545-1547-2002-C1.doc
11. This Court can not loose sight of the fact that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while re-opening these appeals under order dated
17.07.2017 has held as follows :
"Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate that all the
applicants be treated similarly. The reference court award in
other cases has been accepted by the respondent. Let similar
treatment be meted out to all the petitioners in the instant case
also."
[emphasis supplied]
12. True that a given sub-division/hissa may be situated away from
the one found in a given group. But undisputedly, the evidence of
group-wise data/distance of other sub-divisions/hissa is already
available. This can be safely applied in cases where other sub-
divisions are available in groups. In my view, following the principle
of reasonableness, the best balancing act between rival stands can be
to apply rate as per paragraph 17(b) since it is held applicable upto
1500 meters from the Highway and group II is till 300 meter distance
and group III is from 300 to 1000 meter from highway. This much
guess work on the basis of available data can be permitted in my
considered opinion, in the peculiar facts of this case. In such cases,
rate of Rs. 23/- per sq. meter should be applied.
13. In remaining cases, where other sub-division/hissa is not
available in groups, minimum rate of Rs. 21/- can be applied as per
paragraph 17(c) of the said Judgment, only because such subject
lands are covered by the same notification.
14. Following chart shows in which group, other sub-divisions of
the subject matter lands are found and accordingly rates are applied.
FA-1545-1547-2002-C1.doc
S.No./Hissa Area in sq. Distance Group of other Market Rate
no. mtr from sub-division in applied as per
Highway impugned Prakash V.
Judgment Deodhar's case -
Rs. per sq. meter
662/1P 2710 - No group 21/-
668/2 3490 - No group 21/-
578/5 1490 300-1000 Group III 23/-
mtr
580/2 2500 300-1000 Group III 23/-
mtr
667/3 380 300mtr Group II 23/-
667/4 680 300 mtr Group II 23/-
668/1 2250 - No group 21/-
580/3 1040 300 - 1000 Group III 23/-
mtr
669/4 1920 - No group 21/-
662/2 5260 - No group 21/-
677/2 4550 300 mtr Group II 23/-
15. The appeals are accordingly partly allowed. Impugned
Judgment and Award is set aside. Respondents are directed to pay to
the Appellants compensation at market rate shown above, in the last
column, alongwith additional amount of 12% under section 23(1A)
of the said Act and solatium of 30% under section 23(2) of the said
Act and interest under section 28 of the said Act. Decree be drawn up
accordingly.
16. Appeals and pending Interim Application are disposed of in
above terms. No order as to costs.
17. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this judgment.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
FA-1545-1547-2002-C1.doc
