Judgment:
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.
1. State of Maharashtra issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 3rd February 1970 intending to acquire lands for a public purpose, namely, development and providing of plots for residential as well as commercial purposes and for an industrial complex from the revenue estate of Village Panvel. CIDCO was the developing authority for whose benefit the lands had been acquired and eventually transferred to the said Corporation. In furtherance to this Notification, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 11th January 1973. The SLAO exercising the powers of the Collector under the provisions of the Act and after adopting the prescribed procedure, made an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 21st January 1981. In this Award, the SLAO awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.50/- to Rs. 6/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired. The possession of the land was taken by the official Respondents on different dates including 22nd March 1974. The Claimants had not preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award passed by the SLAO remained binding between the parties. During the intervening period, certain judgments were pronounced by the Courts giving compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. to the lands having distance of 1.1/2 kms. from the Bombay-Poona Highway as well as Rs. 25/-to Rs. 30/- per sq. mtr. to the lands alleged to be near to the National Highway. Being aware of these judgments in relation to the acquisition of the lands from the same village, the Claimants filed Petitions under Section 28A of the Act. The SLAO awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- to Rs. 10/- per square meter. The Claimants being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the SLAO under Section 28A of the Act, filed petitions under Section 28A(3) of the Act before the Collector and prayed for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. mtr. The Collector referred the application to the Reference Court. After giving opportunities to the parties to lead evidence, the learned Reference Court decided all these References under Section 28A(3) of the Act vide its Award dated 12th January 2000 and awarded following compensation to the Claimants while categorising their acquired lands into four different categories:
Group I : The lands which are very close to Railway Station and Panvel-Matheran State Highway are fetched more value and those lands are entitled to have more value to the extent of Rs. 27/- per Square meter.
Group II : The lands which are abutting to the Bombay-Poona Highway within the 300 meters are entitled to have a value of Rs. 25/- per Square meter.
Group III : The lands which are at a distance of more than 300 meters from Bombay-Poona Highway to the extent of 1000 meters are entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs. 22/- per Square meter. Group IV : And the lands those are at a distance of beyond the 1000 meters from the Bombay-Poona Highway are liable to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per Square meter.
2. The State felt aggrieved from the Award of the Reference Court dated 12th January 2000 and preferred 25 Appeals though by the Reference in question 36 claim Petitions were decided. In addition to this, the Claimants have filed 25 Appeals against the same judgment claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. mtr. Thus, in all, there are 50 Appeals which are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The witnesses of the Claimants were examined as CW-1 and CW-2 and they proved on record Exhibits 23 to Exhibit 35. Amongst these exhibits which were tendered and proved during recording of the statements of the two witnesses, were the judgments of the Courts and/or the statements recorded by the Courts in different land References. The learned Reference Court mainly placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court (Exhibit 25) in First Appeal No. 754 of 1986 in the case of Nama Padu Hudar and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra 1993 (3) Bom. C.R. 54, where the High Court had decided that the Claimants were entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. on 26th February 1993.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not necessary for us to discuss the evidence or the merits or otherwise of the arguments addressed at any greater length. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties i.e. the State as well as the Claimants commonly agreed that the evidence led in the present case is similar to the evidence which was allowed in First Appeal No. 754 of 1986 as well as in First Appeal No. 604 of 1995 (State of Maharashtra v. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar). They further agreed that thus the judgments of the Courts rendered in either of these cases would squarely apply on fact and law to the present Appeals. It is also agreed by the learned Counsel appearing before us that they are not challenging the belting and/or the grouping of lands as effected by the Reference Court and/or as accepted by the judgments of the High Court in the aforementioned judgments. In the above judgments, judgments of the High Court in First Appeal Nos. 382 of 1984 and 875 1985 as well as Exhibit 25, in addition to the other evidence, which were also considered by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Kamali Keshav Mhatre and Ors. 2005 (1) All MR 459, were referred.
5. In view of the common submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, there is hardly any controversy that requires determination by the Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the State argued that the Claimants would not be entitled to the special benefits accruing from the provisions of Section 23(1)(A) of the Act wherever the Award made under Section 11 was prior to the cut off date; i.e. 30th April 1982. There was hardly any opposition to this point but in any case even this point is fairly covered by the judgments referred to above by us.
6. We may notice that in First Appeal No. 604 of 1995, a Division Bench of this Court considered all the exhibits which were proved in the present case as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra) and Smt.Kamali Keshav Mhatre (supra). After detailed discussion, the Court accepted the view expressed by the Division Bench in the case of Smt.Kamali Keshav Mhatre (supra) and awarded compensation upon categorisation of the lands identical to the compensation awarded in Mhatre'scase (supra). The reliefs granted in these Appeals were as under:
(a) Lands falling within 750 meters of the National Highway Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr.
(b) Land falling within 750 to 1500 meters of the National Highway Rs. 23/- per sq. mtr.
(c) Land falling beyond 1500 meters of the National Highway Rs. 21/- per sq. mtr.
7. In addition to this, we may clarify that in First Appeal No. 604 of 1995 (State of Maharashtra v. Prakash Vasudeo Deodhar), it has also been held that the Claimants would not be entitled to the benefits accruing from Section 23(1)(A) wherever the Awards under Section 11 are prior to the cut off date. Resultantly, all the 25 State Appeals are thus allowed to the limited extent as afore-indicated and all the Appeals filed by the Claimants are dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.