STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. TRIMBAK JOMA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In furtherance to the Notification dated 24th September, 1986, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") , the lands belonging to the Claimants were subjected to compulsory acquisition by the Special Land Acquisition officer. The lands were part of the Revenue Estate of Village Roadpali, Taluka panvel, District Raigad, admeasuring about 8040 square metres and forming part of Gats No. 118/0, 128/0 and 170/0. These lands were acquired for a public purpose, viz. , for completion of the project for New Bombay in terms of the notification issued by the Government. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, vide his Award made under section 11 of the Act in year 1989, awarded to the claimants compensation for acquisition of their lands at the rate of Rs. 200/- to rs. 230/- per square metre. Dissatisfied by the awarded compensation, the landowners preferred References under section 18 of the Act. All the 22 References were dealt with and decided together by the learned District Judge, Raigad. Vide judgment dated 23rd December, 1993, the Reference Court granted the following reliefs to the Claimants:-

(2.) The lands belonging to the Claimants were acquired for a purpose - to relieve congestion existing in Bombay proper in respect of industrial, commercial and residential purposes, and to establish a self-sufficient township, popularly known as "the New Bombay Project". The Government had issued Notification for acquiring the lands. This Notification, as already noticed, was issued in the year 1986. It may be noticed here that earlier a Notification was issued in the year 1970 under section 4 of the Act; but the lands were not acquired. The provisions of the Act were amended in the year 1984: Resultantly, the notification issued under section 4 lapsed, rendering the land acquisition proceedings initiated earlier ineffective and whereafter a fresh Notification under section 4 was issued on 24th September, 1986, resulting in the present proceedings.

(3.) Before the learned Reference Court, parties led documentary and oral evidence. The Claimants examined experts, as well as placed on record and proved lease-deeds, allotment letters, etc. , and on the strength of the expert evidence, had prayed for further enhancement. On behalf of the State government, a plea was taken that the claim of the Claimants is exorbitant, unprecedented and based on instances which are neither comparable, nor have a bearing on the matter in controversy. Keeping in mind the pleadings of the parties, and the pleas taken by them, the learned Reference Court framed the following three issues :-