IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed KANCHAN b V y IN K O A D NCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MAYEKAR Date:

2026.04.22

21:22:29 +0530 FIRST APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2018 ALONGWITH CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO. 31025 OF 2025 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2018 The State of Maharashtra ) (Through The Special Land Acquisition ) Officer, Metro Center No.1, Panvel, )

Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad) ) ….. Appellant (Orig. Opponents)

VERSUS Raja Zuga Joshi ) Since deceased through Legal Heirs, ) 1. Venubai Rajaram Joshi, )

Age 48 yrs., Occu. Household, ) R/at Padaghe, Tal. Panvel, ) Dist. Raigad. )

2. Rohidas Rajaram Joshi, )

Age 33 yrs., Occu. Service, ) R/at Padaghe, Tal. Panvel, ) Dist. Raigad. )

3. Uttam Rajaram Joshi, )

Age 30 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, ) R/at Padaghe, Tal. Panvel, ) Dist. Raigad. )

4. Sitarabai Sawalaram Mhatre, )

Age 36 yrs., Occu. Household, ) R/at Bamandongari, Tal. Panvel, ) Dist. Raigad. )

5. Lilabai Parshuram Tambade, )

Age 27 yrs., Occu. Household, )

R/at Dhakta Khanda, Tal. Panvel, ) Dist. Raigad. )

6. Shakuntala Ravindra Patil, )

Age 24 yrs., Occu. Household, ) R/at Dhakta Khanda, Tal. Panvel, ) Dist. Raigad. )

7. Ranjana Rajaram Joshi, )

Age 19 yrs., Occu. Household, ) R/at Padaghe, Tal. Panvel, )

Dist. Raigad. ) ….. Respondents (Orig. Claimants)

Mr. A.R.Patil, Additional G.P. for the State/Appellant.

Adv. Shriram S. Kulkarni a/w. Adv. Sujay Palshikar, Adv. Monish K. Vig for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 7. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

RESERVED ON : 16 DECEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17 APRIL, 2026 JUDGMENT :

This judgment has been divided into parts to facilitate analysis.

Table of Contents A. Introduction....…………………………………………………….03 B. Factual Matrix.…………………………………………………….04 C. Outline of the submissions……………………………………….07

1. Submissions of Claimants………………………...………07 2. Submissions of Respondent – State……………………...14 D. Points for Determination.………………………………………...18

1. Legal Principles and Factors to determine compensation of acquired land.………………………………………………18

2. Factors to be neglected in determining compensation....26

3. The principles of Public Funds in process of acquiring land for public purposes.………………………………….27

4. On whom the burden of proof lies ?..………………..…..29

5. Determination of fair market rate through comparative sales method……………………………………..………...29

6. Evidence Led……..…………………………...……………34 7. Leasehold vs. Freehold…………………………………….37 8. Notification of the year 1970 for New Bombay Project...39 9. Notification of the year 1986 for New Bombay Project...41 10. Letter of Law & Judiciary ………………………………...45 11. Comparison of market rate @Rs. 20/- & 25/- …......…..46 12. Illustration with 30% hike per year………………………48 13. Market Rate Comparison – 1986 Notification…….…….50 E. Conclusion……………..…….…………………………………….54 [A] Introduction:

This First Appeal has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), challenging the judgment and award passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibaug on 31 October, 2014 thereby granting compensation to the original claimant at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per sq.mtr. for acquisition of the land alongwith other statutory benefits. After the Appeal by the State was admitted, the claimants have filed their Cross Objections in the First Appeal.

[B] Factual Matrix :

i) In 1970, the Government of Maharashtra acquired large chunks of land in 96 villages of Raigad and Thane Districts for implementing ‘New Bombay Project’. In the present proceedings, the land under acquisition is in Village Padghe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, admeasuring around 3640 sq.mtrs. A notification under Section 4 was initially issued in the year 1970, under the provisions of the Act. However, as the State did not take any steps to acquire the land within the statutory period, the acquisition lapsed.

ii) Once again, on 24 September 1986, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) published a notification under Section 4 of the Act fo