(1.) Heard the learned AGP for the appellant and Mr.Keluskar for the respondents. The challenge in this First Appeal is to the judgment and award dated 22nd September, 1988 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, District Raigad. By the said judgment and award, the Trial Court disposed of the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act).
(2.) The acquisition relates to land admeasuring 11,940 sq.mtrs. situated at Village Kamothe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The said land was notified for acquisition by a notification under Section 4 of the said Act on 3rd February, 1970 for public purpose of setting up of a satellite city of Navi Mumbai. The award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 13th August, 1986. By the impugned judgment and award, the market value of the acquired land has been fixed @ Rs.12/- per square meter. The appellant-State Government is seeking quashing of the impugned judgment and award. The respondents have filed Cross Objection seeking enhancement in market value to Rs.18/- per square meter.
(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nama Padu Hudar and Others V/s. State of Maharashtra (First Appeal No.754 of 1986) with other connected Appeals dealt with Appeals against the awards under section 18 of the said Act arising out of lands situated at Villages Kamothe and Panvel in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The subject matter of the said Appeals were the awards under Section 18 of the said Act relating to the said lands which were notified for acquisition under the said notification dated 3rd February, 1970 for the same public purpose. It must be noted here that large tracts of lands at various villages such as Panvel, Kamothe, Pendhar, Taloja etc. in Taluka Panvel, District Raigad were notified for acquisition for the same purpose under the notification of the same date. The Division Bench classified lands at Village Kamothe and Village Panvel into five different categories depending on the distance of the acquired land either from Bombay-Pune Highway or from Zilla Parishad Road. The market value of various lands which were subject matter of the said Appeals were fixed by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 25th and 26th February, 1993 depending upon the distance of the acquired land as aforesaid. The said decision has attained finality. Moreover, the Apex Court by a judgment dated 6th March, 2006 in the case of Shantadevi Ruparel V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another (Civil Appeal No.1575 of 2006) has approved the said decision of this Court in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (Supra) and directed that the market value of the lands subject matter of the Appeal before it shall be determined on the basis of the said decision in the case of Nama Padu Hudar. There is no reason why the said decision of the Division Bench should not be applied to this case.