1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 117 OF 1999 1. State of Goa, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.I.P.) Gogol, Margao-Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division IX, Irrigation Department, Gogol, Margao-Goa. .... Appellants. V/s Shri Pancracio Luis, major, landlord, resident of Sao Jose de Areal, Salcete, Goa. .... Respondent Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Mordekar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 11th JUNE, 2008 JUDGMENT : Challenge in this State's appeal is to the award dated 11/08/1999 of the learned Reference Court, Margao, by which compensation payable has been enhanced from Rs. 10/- per sq. mt. to Rs. 24/- per sq. mt. 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1881 and published on Gazette dated 14/06/1984, the Government acquired land at Sao Jose de Areal and Mullem for the construction of 2 Distributory D-2 Canal of Selaulim Irrigation Project and in that was included an area of 1,100 sq. mts. of Survey No. 145/5 of the St. Jose de Areal Village belonging to the applicant. By award dated 12/08/1988, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered to the applicant, compensation at the rate pf Rs. 10/- per sq. mt. which by the impugned award has been enhanced to Rs. 24/- per sq. mt. In support of his case for enhancement, the applicant had given his own evidence and that of Shri Sakharam Bhende/AW2, the Government approved valuer, Shri Santosh Navelkar/AW3, Shri Desiderio Menezes/AW4, whose property was also the subject matter of the same acquisition, and Prakash Volvotkar/AW5, to prove two sale deeds dated 9/10/1985 and 17/01/1985, both being post notification sale deeds. 3. The learned Reference Court rejected the report of Shri S. Bhende/AW2 for reasons mentioned in para 7 of the impugned judgment. The learned Reference Court noted that 2,175 sq. mts. belonging to Desiderio Menezes/AW4, were also acquired by the said notification, from Survey Nos. 145/4 and 6 and in LAC No. 117/1990 he had enhanced the compensation payable to Rs. 24/- per sq. mt as the land was of Bharad type with no paddy cultivation. The learned Reference Court also noted that in LAC No. 117/1990 of the said Desiderio Menezes/AW4, he had discussed the case of Smt. Sushilabai Panandikar in LAC No. 181/1990 pertaining to 3 the same acquisition and in which the price fixed was also Rs. 24/- per sq. mt. Thereafter, the learned Reference Court referred to the evidence of Smt. Roshan Akbar/AW6 who was examined by the applicant to prove the sale deed dated 28/05/1984 admeasuring 548 sq. mts. which was sold at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. mt. and thereafter taking certain deductions, the learned Reference Court fixed the compensation payable to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 24/- per sq. mt. 4. Shri Shirodkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the case of Desiderio Menezes/AW4 was settled before this Court in a Lok Adalat and the said Desiderio Menezes/AW4 received compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per sq. mt. Shri Shirodkar further submits that the case of Smt. Sushilabai Panandikar was the subject matter in First Appeal No. 107/1998 and Cross Objections No. 1/2000 and this Court by judgment dated 7/04/2004 dismissed the appeal and the Cross Objections. Learned Additional Government Advocate therefore submits that the market value of the land in this case cannot be more than Rs. 18/- per sq. mt. 5. On the other hand, Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant's land admeasuring 644 sq. mts. from Survey No. 145/5 is deemed to have been converted from 3/09/1981 for industrial purposes and therefore the applicant's land in any event ought to be 4 valued higher than that of the said Desiderio Menezes. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned Reference Court has taken a deduction of Rs. 5/- per sq. mt. towards conversion and development charges and if the same is added to Rs. 18/- per sq. mt. awarded to the said Desiderio Menezes, the market price of the acquired land could not be said as excessive. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that there was no comparison shown that the acquired property was similar to the plot of sale deed dated 28/05/1984 and moreover the plot of the sale deed was situated at a distance of about 2.5 kms. from the acquired land, and therefore the same could not be used to fix the market value of the acquired land. 7. Admittedly, the Government has paid the said Desiderio Menezes, compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per sq. mt. The applicant's land abuts on either side of the said land of Desiderio Menezes and is otherwise at a distance of about 25 mts. or so from the industrial estate where there was electricity and tap water available in the vicinity. It is at a distance of about a kilo metre from Margao-Quepem road. There was a primary school, church and bank, and the entire locality was situated at a distance of about 6 kms. away from Margao. It may be true that the applicant had led no evidence to prove the comparison between the acquired property and the property sold by 5 virtue of the sale deed dated 28/05/1984, but according to the Government itself, the purchasers of the said sale deed did not purchase the same in their capacity as Mundkars and the learned Reference Court considering that it was a developed plot and taking out several deductions, including Rs. 5/- towards conversion, and a further deduction of 53% towards development had reduced the price payable to the applicants at Rs. 24/- per sq. mt. One certainly could not deny the fact that the applicant's property could be put to industrial use, as it was lying very close to the industrial estate, for which necessary permission was already obtained by the applicant. The said Desiderio Menezes had not obtained such permission and therefore the property of the applicant certainly deserved to be assessed at the higher value than that of said Desiderio Menezes. Considering that the learned Reference Court fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 24/- per sq. mt. to the applicant's property, after considering a deduction of Rs. 5/- per sq. mt. towards conversion charges, fixing of market value of Rs. 24/- per sq. mt. could not be termed to be excessive, arbitrary or unreasonable to call for interference from this Court. If at all the said Smt. Sushilabai Panandikar failed in her reference, it was because she had relied upon the sale deed which was about 16 months after the date of notification. In the light of the above, there is no case made out for interference. Appeal is dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-