IMPORTANT POINT
In determining market value of land under acquisition both positive and negative factors have to be considered as also some subsequent events. It also involves some guesswork.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. These appeals involving similar questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. By reason of a notification dated 3.02.1970, the State of Maharashtra expressed its desire to acquire a large chunk of land situated in 96 villages for the purpose of forming new twin city near Bombay called as `New Bombay Project. By reason of the said notification, 53 acres of land, i.e., 5300 sq. m. belonging to the appellants herein and situated in village Wahal in the District of Raigad, Maharashtra was sought to be acquired.

A declaration in terms of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") was made on 21.05.1971.

3. A notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued pursuant whereto the claimants - appellants filed their applications for payment of enhanced compensation.

4. The Land Acquisition Collector made its award. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the appellants filed applications before the Collector for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act pursuant whereto reference was made to the Court of District Judge in the year 1986.

5. Before the Reference Court, the parties adduced their respective evidences. Appellants examined one Jeevan Kulkarni (PW-2) as an expert witness. He made valuation of the lands in question. He visited the land on or about 20.06.1987 and prepared a report estimating the value of the land at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. m., i.e., Rs. 60,000/- per acre. By reason of the award dated 30.01.1988, the Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq.m. with all other benefits.

6. In reference cases involved in Civil Appeal Nos. 4260-4261 of 2002 (Ramdas Dattatraya Naik v. The State of Maharashtra) and Civil Appeal Nos. 4264-4265 of 2002 (Dattatraya Krishna Naik (since deceased) through his proposed Legal Representatives) v. The State of Maharashtra), however, compensation was awarded upon adopting the belting method at the rate of Rs. 6 and 10 per sq. m. respectively.

7. Both the parties preferred appeals and cross-appeals thereagainst. By reason of the impugned judgment, whereas the appeal preferred by the appellants had been dismissed, the cross appeals preferred by the State in Civil Appeal Nos. 4260-4261 of 2002 and in Civil Appeal Nos. 4264-4265 of 2002 was allowed holding that compensation determined at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq. m. was justified. However, in Civil Appeal Nos. 4264-4265 of 2002 where the Trial Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. m., it was reduced to Rs. 7/- per sq. m. by reason of the impugned judgment.

8. Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel, in support of these appeals, would contend that the Reference Court as also the High Court could not have rejected the testimony of Mr. Jeevan Kulkarni who made a modest estimate in regard to valuation of the land at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq. m.

Drawing our attention to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Unama Padu Hudar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra [First Appeal No. 754 of 1986, decided on 25 & 26th February, 1993], the learned counsel urged that in respect of villages Panvel and Kamothe, the High Court itself adopted belting system and granted various amounts of compensation depending upon the proximity of the village from the National Highway running between Bombay and Pune to the following effect:

"Group No. First Appeal No. Rate granted per sq. m.

I. Abutting the

754/1986 25

Highway 763/1986

II. Within 800 Metres 751/1986 (Part) 23

756/1986

III. Abutting Kamothe 753/1986 22`

Z.P. Road to 1200 751/1988 (Part)

Metres 752/1986

IV-A. 800 Mtrs. to 755/1986 20

2200 Mtrs from

Bombay - Pune

Highway

IV-B. 20 Mtrs from 743/1986 20"

Z.P. Rd., & Gaothan to

640 Mtrs from Z.P. Rd

& Gaothan

9. Our attention was also drawn to the fact that in some cases where award could not be made and published within a period of two years from 24.09.1984 from which date Section 11