1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2006 Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Goa IDC, having Office at Plot No.13A-2, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa. ... Appellant versus 1. Shri Michael Fernandes, resident of House No.143, Rua de Maria Sancoale-Goa, Mormugao Taluka. 2. Dr. Domnic Fernandes, resident of House No.143, Rua de Maria Sancoale, Mormugao Taluka. 3. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Goa IDC, having Office at Plot No.13A-2, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa. ... Respondents Shri M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 8TH APRIL, 2011. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 7-10-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.41 of 2000. 2. The land belonging to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was intended to be acquired pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) dated 13-8-1987 and published in the Government Gazette on 5-10-1987 for setting up of an Industrial Estate at Verna. Amongst the land acquired, a property admeasuring an area of 9225 sq. meters surveyed under No.26/1 of Nagoa village out of which the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were claiming half area was intended to be acquired. By Award dated 29-11-1994, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq. meter for an area of 5805 sq. meters and Rs.5/- per sq. meter for an area of 3420 sq. meters. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the said Respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.150/- per sq. meter for the land acquired and a further sum of Rs.72,229/- for the compound wall. The 3 Reference Court by Judgment and Award dated 7-10-2005 partly allowed the said reference and held that the Appellant was entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.18/- per sq. meter besides other statutory benefits and, interalia, directed the payment of excess amount of Rs.65,768/- to the Respondents in accordance with their claim together with statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri M. S. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation in favour of the Respondents. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and as such came to an erroneous conclusion that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled for enhancement of compensation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the instances relied upon by the Reference Court are not comparable with the land acquired and as such, there is no justification for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Counsel has further taken me through 4 the evidence on record and pointed out that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to discharge the burden to establish that the amount offered was inadequate and as such, the reference deserves to be rejected. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served have failed to remain present. 4. Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for the Respondent No.3 supported the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. 5. In support of their claim for enhancement, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have examined the Respondent No.1. He has stated that half of the property acquired from the property surveyed under No.26/1 belongs to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as they are co-owners in possession of the said property. He has further stated that the acquired land was a flat land having sweet water well and situated on a plateau at Nagoa. He has stated that all amenities required for residential purpose was situated by the side of Margao-Vasco-Panaji road. He has further stated that at the relevant time, the market value of the land was Rs.150/- per sq. meter. He has further stated that for the widening of the road a portion of the said property was acquired by the Government in the year 5 1984 and the compensation was fixed at Rs.10/- per sq. meter and that they had preferred a reference being Land Acquisition Case No. 168 of 1988 and the amount was enhanced to Rs.30/- per sq. meter along with statutory benefits. He has further stated that undeveloped land was sold at Rs.86/- per sq. meter in the year 1986. He has further stated that if the acquired land was developed he would be able to sell the same at Rs.800/- per sq. meter. He has stated that after the purchase by his father, the land was being cultivated. He has further stated that a part of the said land was for road widening and as such his land was adjoining the road. He has further stated that Kesarval Hotel is about 200 metres from the acquired land and that an area of 365 meters was acquired for road widening earlier. He has further stated that he had no documents to establish that the market value of the land was Rs.300/- per sq. meters on the relevant date. The next witness is Shri P. Gaonkar who was examined on behalf of the Appellant. He has stated that there was no infrastructural facilities available in the vicinity of the acquired land. In the cross- examination, he has stated that he visited the property in the year 1989. He has further admitted that by Award dated 19-4-1991 which was Exh.22, Rs.30/- per sq. meter was awarded in the earlier land acquired of the same property. He has further stated that the acquired land was 6 barren land having some slopes. The Reference Court whilst appreciating the evidence on record has accepted Rs.30/- per sq. meter on the basis of the said award wherein the land acquired was in respect of the same property and effected deduction on account of the largeness of the acquired land. By effecting deduction of 15% as development costs charges and 15% for making internal roads, the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.13.50 and after giving 10% appreciation per year awarded a sum of Rs.17.96 for the land acquired. 6. There is no dispute that the earlier acquisition was part and parcel of the same property. As such, the award at Exh. 22 can form the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land. The Reference Court has effected deduction to the extent stated above. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed any Cross Objections nor assailed the percentage of deduction made by the Reference Court. The Reference Court after making such deductions has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.18/- per sq. meter. The land which was acquired was surveyed under No.26/1 of Nagoa village which was also subject matter of the previous acquisition. The law is well settled that instances of the same land are best pieces of evidence to determine the 7 market value of the acquired land when there is no dispute that the nature of the portions acquired are similar. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant is not justified to contend that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to establish that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. On the contrary, on the basis of the said award at Exh.22, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have established that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. There is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in accepting the said award as the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. The amount awarded by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unjust and exorbitant. The Reference Court has rightly directed the payment of compensation to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with their claim in the reference proceedings. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. RD