-1-

IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL

CIVIL

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST

FIRST

FIRST APPEAL NO.96 OF 1989

APPEAL NO.96 OF 1989

APPEAL NO.96 OF 1989

1. A. Aziz Makbool Tade; .

2. Kasam Mehtab Shaikh; .

3. Hafiz Hasan Tade; .

4. Salim Yacub Tade; .

5. Kaiyyum Yusuf Tade; .

6. Akbar Mehmood Tade; .

7. Kashinath Joma Bahira;

..Appellants

V/s.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Raigad.

..Respondent

Ms. S.P. Manchekar for the appellant .

None for the respondents

CORAM

CORAM

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

DATE

DATE

DATE : 27TH JUNE, 2008

: 27TH JUNE, 2008

: 27TH JUNE, 2008

ORAL

ORAL

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

JUDGMENT :-

JUDGMENT :-

.

The

appellants-original

claimants have

challenged

the

impugned

judgment

dated

31st

March,

1987

whereby

an

application

under

Section

18

of

the

Land

Acquisition

Act

for

increase

in

the

amount

of

compensation.

The

Civil

Judge,

Senior

Division,

Raigad

by the impugned judgement awarded the enhanced

compensation @ Rs.15/- instead of Rs.25/- as claimed.

2.

In the First Appeal 1330 of 1993, this Court

after

considering

the

material

placed

on

record

in

the

Land

Acquisition

matter

No.47

of

1985

for

New

Bombay

project

the

compensation

has

granted

at

Rs.15/-

per

square

meter.

Based

upon

the

other

land

acquisition

related

the

First

Appeal

No.

1123

of

2005

is

referred

-2-

in

this

case

and

rejected

the

claim

@

Rs.15

as

mentioned.

Apart

from

this,

the

learned

Judge

has

also

considered

that

the

land

in

dispute

is

having

potentiality

and,

therefore,

the

compensation

awarded

by

the

Land

Acquisition

Officer

has

been

enhanced.

The

averments

made

in

the

Appeal

that

the

Panvel

is

at

very

short

distance

from

Bombay

and

was

i.e.

situated

at

Panvel

that

itself

cannot

be

a

reason

to

interfere

in

the

impugned

Judgment

based

upon

the

similarity

situated

lands

and

the

decision

given

by

the

Land

Acquisition

Officer,

CIDCO

referred

in

the

first

appeal.

The

learned

Judge

by

giving

reasons

considered

the

case

and

granted

compensation

at

the

rate

of

15

per

Sq.meter. It is a reasonable compensation in the fact

and circumstances of the case.

3.

Therefore, there is no material on record to

prove that the sufficient case is made out to enhance

the amount of compensation @Rs.25 in the present case.

4.

In view of this appeal filed by the appellant

is dismissed.

(ANOOP

(ANOOP

(ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.)

V. MOHTA,J.)

V. MOHTA,J.)