Individual numberices under Section 9 3 and 9 4 were also issued on October 10, 1975 which came to be served on respondent Company on October 16, 1975.
Respondent Company claimed companypensation Rs.
The High Court allowed the appeal of the Company and granted enhancement in the amount of companypensation by deducting development charges 20 per cent.
Corrigendum dated September 5, 1970 was published in Government Gazette on September 7, 1970.
as Rs.
Notices under Section 9 1 and 9 2 of the Act were issued on May 10, 1973 and were published in Government Gazette on May 21, 1973 and May 10, 1973 respectively.
Moreover, the evidence of architect cum valuer Claimant Witness No.
meter for entire land by deducting development charges 20.
15 per sq.
Obviously, therefore, he had numberknowledge as to what happened between 1970 and 1986 except what he had heard from other persons or so called information received by him.
metre.
It is clear from the record and also from the cross examination of Claimant Witness No.
He companyld number say as to whether the Company had papers when the representation was made to the Government.
All the sale instances were between 500 meters and l kilometer from Bombay Pune Highway.
After receipt of numberice under Section 12 2 of the Act, being dissatisfied with the award, the claimant respondent Company filed a Land Reference being LAR No.
l, it appears that the entire development was number prior to or in or about 1970 and such development was after the said period.
There was numberresidential companyony except companylege campus quarters.
Thereafter, numberification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on October 25, 1972 which was published in Government Gazette on December 7, 1972.
located at village Wadghar in Taluka Panvel of District Raigard in Maharashtra.
758 of 1988 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay partly allowing the appeal of the claimants for grant of enhanced companypensation.
He also stated that he companyld number trace the record in the office.
meter.
He had to admit that there was numberindustry in Wadghar village and numbercommercial zone was formed in Wadghar village before 1970.
189 of 1986 under Section 18 of the Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to forward the same to the Civil Court for adjudication and claimed companypensation for entire land at the uniform rate of Rs.
2004 Supp 4 SCR 895 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
So far as acquired land is companycerned, he admitted that in 1970, it was partly agricultural land and partly uncultivable.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.
Being dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has preferred this appeal by special leave.
To us, however, it appears that the learned companynsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the High Court had number appreciated the evidence of witnesses for the claimants properly.
15 per square yard for agricultural land.
and maximum of 1500 sq.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent claimant, the India Standard Metal Comany Limited Company for short owned various pieces of land admeasuring about 21 hectres and 31.5 acres 2,13,150 Sq.
per sq.
758 of 1988 before the High Court of Bombay and claimed companypensation at the uniform rate of Rs.
In the Land Reference, respondent Company examined its Power of Attorney holder Balchandra Shantaram Sule as C.W. l as also Jeewan Naraya Kulkarni as C.W.2, valuer who visited the land in August September, 1986.
A companynter affidavit and affidavit in rejoinder have been filed.
By number doing so, the High Court acted illegally and the order allowing the appeal by the High Court deserves to be set aside by restoring the order passed by the Reference Court.
45 per sq.
2 also relates to the period of August, 1986 and thereafter.
Serious grievance voiced by the learned companynsel for the appellant was that the High Court has number companysidered extremely important material, namely, that a part of the land was acquired by the Government for the Company as also the fact that the Company had purchased some land by private negotiations in or about 1964 65.
meter.
He also admitted that he visited the place four times.
Development of the area was subsequent to and post 1970 and the amount of companypensation companyld number be fixed companysidering the development of area after 1970.
In spite of insistence by the appellant, numberdocumentary evidence was furnished number sale deeds were produced by the Company.
metre.
Claimant respondent also filed Civil Application No.
In his examination in chief itself, he has stated that in August, 1986, he was entrusted with the work of valuation of acquired land by the Company.
He visited the office of Talathi and companylected necessary information regarding sale transactions and valuation of land by studying the sale transactions from 1967 to 1972.
All the sale instances except the award of NIDC were on the eastern side of the Bombay Highway and the acquired land was about 2 kilometers away from Bombay Pune Highway and by road it was 2.5 kilometers.
1.10 ps per sq.
20 per square yard for number agricultural land and Rs.
The sale deeds were in respect of minimum area of 500 sq.
Those lands were acquired by the State Government for New Bombay Project by issuing numberification dated February 3, 1970 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act which was published in Government Gazette on February 4, 1970.
The Civil Judge, Raigad by an order April 18, 1987 awarded companyensation Rs.
The High Court by the impugned order dated July 3, 2001 awarded enhanced companypensation of the acquired land Rs.
He denied that he ignored those transactions because otherwise valuation companyld number be enhanced.
He also admitted that he did number feel to see sale transactions in respect of the land in question.
In calculating development charges 20, an error on the face of the record has been companymitted by the High Court.
The High Court by companysidering such development companymitted an error in enhancing the amount of companypensation.
l, Panvel passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on February 22, 1985 and fixed the market value of the land including trees, companystruction, solatium and additional companypensation etc.
So far as the evidence of Jeewan Naraya Kulkarni, the valuer is companycerned, it was urged that he had admitted that he was entrusted with the work of valuation of acquired land by the claimants only in August, 1986, i.e. after more than 15 years of issuance of numberification under Section 4 of the Act.
After wards, he studied the development in neighbouring area and its effect on the acquired land.
From the evidence of Balchandra S o Shantaram Sule, Claimant Witness No.
It was, therefore, on the basis of that date that the amount of companypensation was required to be determined.
From the said evidence, it was clear that most of the development was post 1970.
15 per sq.
756 of 1988 seeking permission to produce additional evidence and also sought amendment by claiming enhanced companypensation Rs.
1.80 per sq.
Notice was issued pursuant to which the respondent appeared.
29,58,790 was claimed.
Dissatisfied with the quantum of companypensation, the respondent Company preferred First Appeal No.
All those facts ought to have been appreciated by the High Court before allowing the appeal and granting enhancement of companypensation.
In Cross examination, the witness admitted that he did number know that the acquired land was purchased by the claimant in 1967.
An amount of Rs.
Thus, additional amount of Rs.
The appellant State filed its written statement before the Civil Judge, Senior Division Raigad at Alibag in the Reference.
The said Notification was issued in February, 1970.
Sale instances sought to be relied upon by the claimants in respect of small pieces of lands, therefore, were number much relevant and number companyparable.
Thus, additional amount of Rs.
5,09,103.60 together with interest 9 for first year and 15 for subsequent years was granted.
930 of 1992 in pending First Appeal No.
12.50 per sq.
He visited the land thereafter, i.e. in the end of 1986 and prepared his report on that basis.
7,40,832.75 was paid to the claimants on February 25, 1985 and possession of the entire land was taken over.
He thereafter visited the acquired land.
The companynsel further submitted that the land in question is a large track of land admeasuring more than 2 kilometers.
7,40,832.67 ps thereby fixing the market value of the land at Rs.
Deduction of development charges would have been more companyparing the development of recent past.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment and order dated July 3, 2001 in First Appeal No.
