1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.179 OF 2005 Mr. Ravi Devshibhai Patel, R/o. Damodar Wood Industries, Davorlim, Main Road, Davorlim, Salcete, Goa. …. Appellant V/s 1. Deputy Collector (L.A.), South Goa, Margao. 2. The Executive Engineer (Planning), Goa Housing Board, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. …. Respondents Mr. C.A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 13th DECEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 4/12/2004 of the learned Reference Court by which the original applicant, who has filed the present appeal has been granted compensation at the enhanced rate of `18/- per square metre. 3. There is no dispute that the applicant had purchased the acquired properties now surveyed under no.123/5 at the rate of `9/- 2 per square metre by sale deed dated 28/02/1988. This sale deed was produced as Exhibit 24. The applicant had also produced another sale deed dated 6/01/1997 at Exhibit 25. This was in respect of a developed plot of land of adjoining property Surveyed under No.122/1 which was sold at the rate of `125/- per square metre. 4. What has been acquired in this case is 7,200 square metres which is now surveyed under no.123/5 and there is no dispute about it. Shri Coutinho, learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that the learned Reference Court has considered Exhibit 24 as the basis of enhancing compensation and has given escalation at the rate of `10/- per square metre only when it ought to have been granted on compounding basis. Learned Counsel further submits that the adjoining plot sold vide Exhibit 25 was sold on 6/01/1997 and even if the said plot is considered as the developed plot and even if 75% deduction was made towards development even then the applicant ought to have been granted compensation at the rate of `33/- per square metre. 5. Shri Shirodkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that Exhibit 25 was not a comparable sale 3 deed as the acquired land was hilly with a steep to the extent of 60% and mild slope to the extent of 40% and 65% of the area was under settlement zone and 35% was under orchard zone. Therefore, the plot of Exhibit 25 could not be compared with the acquired property. 6. The learned Reference Court has used Exhibit 24 as the basis of enhancing compensation and the use of the same cannot be faulted as it is well settled principle that when sale deed of a self same land is available there is no need to travel beyond the acquired land. The Apex Court in Special Deputy Collector and Anr. etc. V/s. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Etc. (AIR 1997 SC 2625) has stated that: “The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transaction in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors. In the absence of such a sale deed relating to the acquired land, the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land.” 7. However, the sale deed – Exhibit 25 would indicate that the acquired property was located in a fast developing locality, in that within a decade, a developed plot was sold at the rate of `125/- per 4 square metre. Courts have always taken notice of ever rising prices of lands and that rise is always sounded by appropriate percentage of escalation. Often it is 10%. Considering the facts, the learned Reference Court could have granted enhancement or escalation at the rate of 10% on compounding basis, and when granted, it works out to a rate of `23.23 per square metre which is rounded up to `23/- per square metre. 8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified and the compensation payable to the applicant is fixed at the rate of `23/- per square metre. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-