GOVIND KANU MADHAVI Vs. SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment dated 6. 1. 1988 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn. , Alibag in L. A. R. No. 62 of 1982.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant claimant as well as the learned A. G. P. for the State. The Special land Acquisition, Metro Centre No. 1, Panvel, Dist. Raigad Acquired lands for New Bombay Project admeasuring 8330 sq. mtrs. from Survey Numbers belonging to the claimant for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") came to be issued on 3. 2. 1970. The awarded rate of compensation was Rs. 3/- for Survey No. 44/3 and Rs. 5/- for Survey No. 45/5. The award came to be passed on 18. 6. 1981. The claimant filed reference under Section 18 of the Act making grievance that the market price awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the S. L. A. O. ") was unreasonable and inadequate considering the N. A. potentiality, capitalization and sale instances. Therefore, he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/ per sq. mtr. and also claimed additional compensation under different counts contemplated under the said Act. The opponent State opposed the reference denying the claim of the claimant. The learned Trial Judge settled the issues and adjudicated the dispute on merits and came to the conclusion that proper and fair market price of the impugned land was Rs. 7/- per sq. mtr. He also awarded additional components under the Act i. e. compensation under Section 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and under Section 28 of the Act and award came to be passed. It was also directed that since the claimants where the tenants in the suit property, they were entitled to 60% of the decretal amount and residue was to go to the landlord i. e. the Trust. Hence, the claimant filed appeal inter-alia submitting that proper market rate of the impugned property was Rs. 30/- per sq. mtr. and hence the appeal. On the other hand, the State has come in appeal stating that the award passed by the learned Trial Judge was exorbitant and, therefore, the order is required to be quashed as the award of the S. L. A. O. was proper.

(3.) AT the outset, it may be noted that it is an admitted position that the lands in question are from village Kalundre, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad and were acquired for New Bombay Metro Project alongwith several other lands from several adjoining villages for the development of New Bombay Project to facilitate establishment of new city consisting of commercial, residential and industrial township. The claimant has led his evidence including the evidence of witness Shri Kulkarni, the expert valuer, whose report and the map are also on record. As against this, the State has led absolutely no evidence either documentary or oral in order to rebutt the evidence of the claimant. While adjudicating the reference, the learned Trial Judge has referred to the evidence of sale deed which has come on record through the claimant's evidence alongwith expert valuer's report As can be seen from the record, the learned Trial Judge has put reliance on the expert valuer's opinion and report, which dhows that the value of the land is assessed on the basis of several sale instances of adjoining lands as well as location, situation and infrastructural facilities available on the land as on the date of notification. The report Exh. 19 shows that the Bombay-Pune National Highway is at the distance of 300 meters from the land and Panvel railway station is at about 1500 meters, M. S. E. B. colony is about 1000 meters, the old Panvel Municipal limit is at 300 meters and Palaspa commercial complex is at 400 metes away from the acquired lands. It is also a plain land and requires no filling and, therefore, considering the facilities available and the particular individual characteristic, emphasize was given to the land's N. A. potentiality. The report also shows that the CIDCO, for whose use the impugned land was acquired, had sold undeveloped land in the same village at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. mtr. It is significant to note that this evidence was not challenged on behalf of the state and, therefore,, the learned Trial Judge was of the view that the situation of the land and surrounding area which was narrated to and shown in the map as well as report of the expert valuer, were required to be accepted and, therefore, he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to increase the rate of compensation as the rate granted by the S. L. A. O. was inadequate. Taking into account all these things, the learned Trial Judge was of the view that the fair market price of the land was Rs. 7/per sq. mtr. and accordingly passed the award.