1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2006 1. Land Acquisition Officer, PWD(Cell) Panaji. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D-VI(R & S) P.W.D., Margao, Goa. ... Appellants versus Shri Eugenio Misquita, R/o House No.446, Pulwaddo, Benaulim, Salcete, Goa. ... Respondent Shri S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri Judas Chagas E. Silva, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 10-1-2005 passed by the learned District Judge at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.31 of 2000. 2 2. By a notification dated 26-6-1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the appellants acquired land belonging to the respondent surveyed under No.158/4 admeasuring an area of 875 sq. meters for the purpose of constructing and blacktopping of St. Sebastian Chapel road via Pequeno Pulwado and Pulwado in Village Panchyat of Benaulim, Salcete, Goa. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, the respondent was offered the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq. meter. Being dissatisfied, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed a sum of Rs.365/- per sq. meter for the land acquired. 3. By Judgment and Award dated 10-1-2005, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference filed by the respondent and directed the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the appellants preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out 3 that the Reference Court has misdirected itself in enhancing the compensation from the one offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the instances produced by the respondent are not at all comparable with the land acquired and as such, the respondent was not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. Learned Government Advocate took me through the evidence on record and pointed out that there is nothing to suggest that the respondent is entitled for any enhancement of compensation. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the land acquired was a narrow strip of land which had no potential to be used for construction purposes and as such the question of awarding any enhancement of compensation on the assumption that the land was suitable for non agricultural purpose would not arise. Learned Government Advocate as such submitted that the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Judas Chagas E. Silva, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel pointed out that there is ample evidence on record to establish that the respondent is entitled for enhancement of 4 compensation. He further submitted that the land is situated at Benaulim village which is close to the beach and which is a tourist center. Learned Counsel further submitted that in any event, this Court whilst disposing off First Appeal No. 2 of 2006 by Judgment dated 1-3-2011 has in fact confirmed the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter in respect of the land which was subject matter of the said notification and as such the question of awarding any different compensation to the respondent would not arise. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following points for determination arise: 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter? 7. In support of his claim for enhancement, the respondent has examined himself and has stated that in Land Acquisition Case No.133 of 1993, one Francisco Correia de Meircles was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter and that the land acquired therein was pursuant to a notification of the year 1990. He has also produced two sale deeds, one dated 30-3-1992 when the price was at the rate of 5 Rs.428/- per sq. meter and the date of the notification is stated to be very proximate to the date of publication of the notification in the present case and that the lands are at a distance of one km. apart. The next sale deed is dated 6-5-1992 where the sale price is of Rs.226/- per sq. meter and the land is stated to be only 400 meters away from the acquired property and in the same village. He has further stated that infrastructure facilities are available within a radius of 100 meters from the acquired land and that the acquired land is a bharad land with leveled configurations and that the lands which were sold pursuant to the sale instances and the land acquired are similar in nature. In the cross-examination, it is stated that the distance from the sale deed plot and his property is about 800 meters and in order to reach the acquired land one has to pass through three other properties. The remaining part of the cross objections are merely denying the suggestions put by the appellants. The next witness examined is Mr. Constancio Menezes, retired Government servant who has prepared a report. He further stated that he did not recollect the length and breadth of the acquired land and did not remember whether there was direct access to the acquired land. The said valuer has done the valuation on the basis of the coconuts existing therein. Another witness examined is Shridhar Kamat who has 6 also prepared the report. In the cross-examination, he has stated that when the property was inspected, the work of the road was over in the acquired land. 8. The learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Judgment dated 10-1-2005 has relied upon an award in Land Acquisition Case No.133 of 1993 where compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter. Learned Judge has found that the acquired land was bharad land and on the basis of the said award has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter. The learned Judge for reasons recorded did not rely upon the said two sale instances at Exhs.18 and 19. The remaining claims put forward by the respondent came to be rejected. On perusal of the Judgment dated 1-3-2011 passed in First Appeal No.2 of 2006, I find that the land acquired therein was admeasuring an area of 475 sq. meters from the property surveyed under Nos.1/10 and 164/5 for the same purpose pursuant to the same notification. This Court after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- cannot be said to be in excess and unjust. There is no dispute that the land acquired herein and the land which is the subject matter of the land acquired therein is for the 7 same purpose. Both the lands are in the same village and no submission is advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there is any substantial dissimilarity between the land acquired and the land which is subject matter in the said case. There is no reason for this Court to award any different compensation for the land acquired in the present land. The Reference Court on the basis of the material on record has come to the conclusion that the land is to be fixed at Rs.60/-. The amount determined by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or exorbitant. For the reasons stated in the said Judgment dated 1-3-2011, I find no grounds to interfere in the impugned Judgment. There are no reasons to award any different compensation in the present case. As such, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Award. There is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. RD