: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2007 1. Babasaheb Krishnarao Rane Sardessai, 2. Ganapatrao Krishnarao Rane Sardessai, 3. Rukmini Krishnarao Rane Sardessai, All residents of House No.45, Vadaval, Post Assonora, Goa. 4. Vishwasrao Babasaheb Rane Sardessai, resident of House No.44, Vadaval, Post Assonora Goa. 5. Vijayrao Babasaheb Rane Sardessai, resident of House No.46, Vadaval, Post Assonora Goa. 6. Rajasaheb Babasaheb Rane Sardessai ( expired), through Legal heirs :- 6a) Smt. Suwasini Rajasaheb Rane Sardessai (wife), 6(b) Shri Pradip Rajasaheb Rane Sardessai, ( son ), 6(c) Smt. Pranali Pradip Rane Sardessai ( daughter-in-law) All residents of House No.47, Vadaval, Post Assonora, Goa. : 2 : 7. Manikrao Babasaheb Rane Sardessai, resident of House No.43, Vadaval, Post Assonora Goa. … Appellants V e r s u s 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer ( N), Irrigation Department, Mapusa Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division I, Irrigation Department, Panaji Goa. … Respondents Mr. Jitendra Supekar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Abhijeet Kamat, Additional Governemnt Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM:- A.S. OKA & F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated:- 6 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A. S. OKA,J ) The Appellants who are the claimants in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) have preferred this Appeal for challenging the judgment and award dated 17th : 3 : February, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji Goa. The acquisition relates to the lands surveyed under survey Nos. 752, 756, 740, 762, 764/1, 764/2, 760, 761, 759, 758 and 667 totally admeasuring 64716 square metres. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 9th November, 1995. An award under Section 11 of the said Act was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13th August, 1998. The Land Acquisition Officer offered the market value at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre. In the reference under Section 18 of the said Act, the Appellants claimed the market value at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre for the acquired land. They also prayed for compensation of Rs.30/- per square metre towards severance of their other lands. By the impugned award, the Reference Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Appellants came to the conclusion that the market value at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre was reasonable and proper. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has taken us through the notes of evidence and other material on record. He pointed out that though the total area of the acquired land is more than 64,000 square metres, it consists of portions of the land forming part of the different survey numbers. He pointed : 4 : out that the nature of every portion of the acquired land with reference to its user is different and without considering the features of every portion of the land, the Reference Court has proceeded to dismiss the reference. He invited our attention to the sale instances produced by the Appellants in the form of sale deeds dated 23rd June, 1986 (Exhibit 19 ), 26th April, 1991(Exhibit 21) and 27th June, 1995 (Exhibit 22). He invited our attention to the finding recorded by the Reference Court on the said sale deeds. He invited our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 31st March, 2008 in First Appeal Nos. 13, 14 & 16 of 2003. He pointed out that the sale instance of the sale deed dated 26th April, 1991(Exhibit 21) which is produced in the present case was accepted by the Division Bench. He submitted that without assigning any cogent reasons the said sale instance has been discarded by the Reference Court. He submitted that even as regards the sale deed dated 27th June, 1995 the learned Reference Court committed an error by making deduction of 20%. He pointed out that there was no reason to hold that the land subject matter of the said sale deed was superior to the acquired land. He invited our attention to the evidence of the first Appellant in which he has stated that the property surveyed under survey Nos. 758 and 667 : 5 : is a cashew garden which was extensively developed by the Appellants. He pointed out that there is no cross examination made of the said witness on this aspect. He pointed out that the observations made by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment that on the land subject matter of the sale deed at Exhibit 22, there were several fruit bearing trees. He submitted that at least as regards the land surveyed under the aforesaid two survey numbers, the minimum market value of Rs.15/- per square metre was required to be fixed. He submitted that the land subject matter of Exhibit 22 was comparable to the acquired land in all respects and, therefore, the minimum market value ought to have been Rs.15/- per square metre. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepted the impugned judgment and award. 3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The relevant date for determination of the market value in the present case is 9th November, 1995. The acquired lands are situated at Latambarcem Village of Bicholim Taluka. The first sale deed relied upon by the Appellants is dated 23rd June, 1986 (Exhibit 19) which relates to the land admeasuring of 550 square metres : 6 : situated in same village. Apart from the fact that the sale has taken place nine years prior to the relevant date, the sale instance relates to a very small land admeasuring 550 square metres which was situated at a distance of about 4 Kms from the acquired land. Therefore, the Reference Court has rightly discarded the said document. The second sale deed is dated 23rd April, 1990 (Exhibit 20 ) in respect of an area of 728 square metres in the same village. Apart from the fact that the area of the land is comparatively very small, even according to the case of the first Appellant, the same is situated within a distance of about 4.5 Kms from the acquired land. Same is the case with sale deed dated 26th April, 1991 (Exhibit 21). The area of the land subject matter of the said sale deed is only 815 square metres and the same is located at a distance of about 4.5 Kms from the acquired land. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants placed reliance on a decision of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 13, 14 and 16 of 2003. The Division Bench was dealing with the Notification under Section 4 of the years 1991 and 1992 in relation to the lands from Village Sal in Bicholim Taluka. Considering the facts of the case, the reliance was placed by the Division Bench on : 7 : sale deed dated 26th April, 1991. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, the Division Bench has observed that the lands which were sold under the different sale instances are nearly 500 metres away from the National Highway and the acquired land is at a distance of about 150 metres away from the National Highway. In the present case, the aforesaid three sale deeds are of pre- notification sales and the lands subject matter of the said three sale deeds are situated far away from the acquired land. Apart from that, the area of the lands under the said sale deeds is very small. 5. Lastly, a reliance has been placed on the sale deed dated 27th June, 1995 ( Exhibit 22 ). The area of the land subject matter of the said sale deed is 102865 square metres which was sold at the rate of Rs.15/- per square metre. The first Appellant stated in his evidence that the land subject matter of the sale deed was at a distance of about 5 Kms from the acquired land. In fact such a long distance from the acquired land is a factor which ought to have been considered by the Reference Court. In the cross examination, the first Appellant admitted that the lands subject matter at Exhibit 22 are developed for the purpose of agricultural : 8 : as well as construction. He stated that there were mango trees, jack fruit trees, cashew trees and other fruit bearing trees in the land subject matter of the sale deed. He admitted that “in this sale deed plot, there was agricultural income accrued to the purchaser in the sale deed and moreover, the area was developed into plots for the purpose of construction.” 6. Apart from the aforesaid admissions by the first Appellant, the second witness examined by the Appellants Mr. S.N. Bhobe, an expert valuer has been cross examined on this aspect. In the cross examination, he admitted that on the land subject matter of the said sale deed there were variety of fruit bearing trees like mango trees, jack fruit trees, cashew trees etc. The expert admitted that there were scattered cashew trees and other forest trees on the acquired land. Therefore, there were several positive factors in respect of sale deed dated 27th June, 1995 (Exhibit 22). 7. A reliance was placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants on a bald statement made in the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief that the property surveyed under survey : 9 : Nos. 758 and 667 was a cashew garden which was extensively developed by the Appellants. However, the first Appellant has not stated the nature of the development carried out, the amount spent and the yield from the said land. Even particulars such as number of cashew trees planted thereon by the Appellants have not been set out in the evidence. That is why the learned Reference Court observed that even treating the land subject matter at Exhibit 22 as a comparable land, 20% deduction will have to be made as the said land was partly developed for agricultural and partly developed for construction. The market value reflected from the said sale deed was Rs.15/- per square metre. While determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the market value reflected from the said sale deed, 20% deduction has been made on the ground that the land subject matter of the sale deed is much superior to the acquired land. Considering the discussion made above, the said finding recorded by the Reference Court that the land subject matter of the sale deed at Exhibit 22 was superior to the acquired land appears to be correct and no fault can be found with the said finding. Even on the basis of the said sale deed, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land on the relevant day was Rs.12/- : 10 : per square metre. The deduction of 20% made by the Reference Court is more than reasonable. In the circumstances, the Appellants have failed to discharge the burden of proving that the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. As the said burden was not discharged, there is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A.S. OKA, J F.M. REIS, J at*