1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.263 OF 2005 1. Deputy Collector, S.D.O, Sub-Division, Margao-Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, W.D. VI, P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao-Goa. …. Appellants V/s Mrs. Sebastiana Antao e Cardozo Resident of Revoraward, Guirdolim, Salcete, Goa, represented by her attorney Fr. Virgino Felizardo Gomes, H.No.251, Carvota Loutolim, Salcete – Goa. …. Respondent Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. None for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 7th FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 19/11/2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.8/1995. 2. By a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” dated 24/05/1972 published in the Official Gazette dated 1/06/1972, an area of 621 square metres was intended to be acquired for the widening of the Guirdolim Macasana road in Salcete Taluka. By 2 an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer offered a sum of Rs.5/- per square metre for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed an amount of Rs.25/- per square metre for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 19/11/2004, the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.13/- per square metre for the land acquired besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Guru Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that there was no material on record for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Counsel further submitted that there was no comparable sale instance produced by the respondent to substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record and pointed out that there is no material for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation at the rate of Rs.13/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further submitted that the amount offered by 3 the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of passing the award under Section 11 of the said Act was just and proper. 4. None appeared for the respondent though served. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired was Rs.13/- per square metre. 6. In support of the claim for enhancement, the power of attorney holder of the appellant has deposed at Exhibit 23 and also filed an additional affidavit at Exhibit 26 and has also produced different instances which include awards passed in other proceedings. 7. While deciding the market value of the acquired land, the Reference Court has considered that the respondent has purchased a portion of plot no.11 somewhere in the year 1963 at the rate of Rs.4/- per square metre and a portion thereof was acquired after a 4 gap of 8 years by the Government. Apart from that the respondent has also relied upon the sale deeds which are at Exhibit 33,50 and 51. After perusing the said sale instances, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the sale instances at Exhibit 50 and 51 were of the year 1989 which were much subsequent to Section 4 notification in the present case. The said sale instance, as such, could not be relied upon for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land. The only sale instance which remained to be considered is at Exhibit 33 which was executed on 16/08/1968 about four years prior to Section 4 notification. The land subject matter of the said sale instance did not have any facilities and amenities nor any approach road and it was in the interior portion of the locality and had dissimilar factors. In such circumstances, the sale deed whereby the respondent himself had purchased the property in the year 1964 from Dr. Jose Gomes at the rte of Rs.4/- per square metre can form the basis for determining the market value of the land. No doubt the said property was purchased eight years prior to the Section 4 notification in the present case, but however, considering that the said sale deed is in respect of a portion of the acquired land itself the same would be more material for the purpose of determining the market value of he acquired land. The Reference Court after giving an escalation 5 of 10% per annum has arrived at a figure of Rs.30/- per square metre as the market value for the land acquired. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material on record, the Reference Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to a sum of Rs.13/- per square metre for the land acquired. The said market value was arrived at on the basis of the purchase of a portion of the acquired land as referred to in the affidavit of AW1 at para 7. The statement of the said power of attorney itself justifies the finding of the Reference Court that the respondent is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.13/- per square metre for the land acquired. The amount awarded by the Reference Court cannot, as such, be said to be unjust, unreasonable or excessive. Point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment. There is no merit in the above appeal and, consequently, the above appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-