STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KRISHNA RAGHUNATH PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned A.G.P. for the Appellant and the learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 9. The challenge in this Appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 11th September 1989 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Raigad. The impugned Judgment and Award is made in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) made at the instance of the original Respondent. The acquisition relates to the agricultural lands at village Bhendkhal, Taluka Uran, District Raigad which were notified by a notification dated 3rd February 1970 under section 4 of the said Act. The purpose of acquisition was for setting up a satellite city of Navi Mumbai. These were three awards under section 11 of the said Act. Two awards were made on 3rd September 1983 and one award was made on 5th September 1983 offering the market value at the rate of Rs.7200/- per acre. The reference Court by the impugned Judgment and Award fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. meter. In the reference, the Respondent claimed market value at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre. In the cross objection, the Respondent has claimed market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per square meter.

(2.) The submission of the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Appellant is that apart from the report of the valuer and the evidence of the said valuer, the original Claimant did not lead any evidence by producing the comparable sale instances. It is submitted that at the relevant time, the acquired lands were agricultural lands having no potential for non agricultural use.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the Respondent invited my attention to the evidence of the witnesses as well as documentary evidence on record. He invited my attention to a certified copy of the sale deed dated 30th September 1967 relating to the property at village Mhatavali within the limits of Uran Municipal Council. He submitted that the said document ought to have been exhibited in view of section 51-A of the said Act. He invited my attention to the agreement of lease executed between the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. in favour of Maharashtra State Electricity Board on 20th March 1981. He submitted that the market value awarded by the Reference Court is on the lower side. He submitted that the cross objection deserves to be allowed.