1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2004 1. The Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (Cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, WD-XXV(R), Fatorda, PWD, Margao, Goa. …. Appellants V/s Shri Ramchandra Govind Bhat, r/o Kajalkar, Loliem, Canacona, Goa. …. Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.130/2001. 2. The land belonging to the respondent was intended to be acquired admeasuring an area of 300 square metres from the property surveyed under no.116/5 for the purpose of constructing a 2 road from Shri Shankarsha temple to National Highway No.17 at Daptamol pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) dated 14/10/1996 published in the Official Gazette on 20/02/1997. By an award under Section 11 of the said Act dated 5/01/2000, the compensation for the land acquired was offered at the rate of `6/- per square metre. 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 `150/- per square metre for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 25/05/2004, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of `36/- per square metres. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Ms. Susan Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected herself in enhancing compensation awarded to the respondent. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired had no potentiality of being used for construction purposes and, consequently, the fixing of any compensation in 3 excess to the one offered by the Land Acquisition Officer would not arise. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the land acquired was not accessible by a motorable road and, as such, this itself disentitled the respondent from claiming any enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Sale Instances produced by the respondent are not at all comparable with the land acquired and, as such, the Reference Court has totally erred in enhancing the compensation. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the respondent has failed to discharge the burden caste on him to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and, as such, the question of enhancing the compensation does not arise. 4. The respondent though served failed to remain present. 5. On perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of `36/- per square metre for the land acquired on the basis of an award at Exhibit 24 which is in respect of the land which was the subject matter of the previous acquisition. The determination of the compensation in respect of the said land was also considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court has further 4 considered that the land which was subject matter of the said award was in the market area and after effective deductions has fixed the compensation at the rate of `36/- per square metre. This Court whiles disposing of First Appeal No.224 of 2004 has fixed the compensation in respect of the land surveyed under No.116/4 at the rate of `65/- per square metre and in respect of the property which is surveyed under Survey No.116/2 at the rate of `32/- per square metre. 6. On perusal of the records, I find that the land acquired in the present case which is surveyed under No.116/5 is also a narrow strip of land and is very similar to the land which is surveyed under no.116/2 which was the subject matter of the said appeal wherein the compensation was fixed at the rate of `32/- per square metre. The only difference as far as the land acquired in the present case is concerned is that it is touching the road, which is not the case as far as the land surveyed under No.116/2 is concerned. 7. In view of the said positive factor, the compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of `36/- per square metre for the land acquired cannot be said to be exorbitant or unjust. I find that, in view of the above, the Reference Court was justified to fix the 5 market value of the land acquired at the rate of `36/- per square metre. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. 8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the above appeal and, consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-