1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2003. 1. State of Goa, through the Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa, Sub-Div. Quepem,Goa. 2. The Director of Education, Government of Goa. Panaji, Goa. .. Appellants Versus Dev, Chandreshwar Bhutnath Devasthan, represented by its Attorney Shri Anand Ganesh Raut Dessai, r/o Assolda, Quepe, Goa. .. Respondent. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. I. Aga, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 21 st October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 24th July, 2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.211/1993 partly allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('The Act' for short). 2 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 13th February, 1990 and published in the official gazette on 5th July, 1990, the Government of Goa acquired lands for public purpose namely construction of Government College Building at Amona-Xeldem of Quepem Taluka. An area admeasuring 33950 bearing survey no.13/0 of Amona- Xeldem belonging to respondent was acquired by the said notification. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per square meter. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) made award on 24th April, 1992 and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.19/- per square meter. The respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square meter. 3. In Land Acquisition Case No.211/1993, the respondent examined Chandrakant Raut Dessai – AW1, Special Power of Attorney of the respondent and Vikas Dessai-AW2- the valuer. The respondent placed reliance upon three sale deeds dated 1st March, 1989 exhibit AW1/B, sale deed dated 29th December, 1989 exhibit AW1/C and 9th January, 1989-AW1/D, valuation report of the valuer exhibit 3 AW1/E and also award of LAO in case no.16/1/84-85 exhibit AW1/F. The respondent also placed reliance upon the report of the expert, which was prepared in the year 1996. The appellants did not lead any evidence. 4. The Reference Court held that the plot in the sale deed dated 29th December, 1989 exhibit AW1/C by which a plot of 500 square meters was sold at the rate of Rs.60/- per square meter and which was at a distance of about 500 meters from the acquired land, was comparable sale instance having regard to the proximity in time and place. After placing reliance upon the said sale deed, the Reference Court deducted 50 % on the ground that the acquired land was a vast land and arrived at a figure of Rs.30/- per square meter. 5. Mr. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court has not made any deduction on the ground of development and, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is unsustainable in law. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subh Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana; (2010)1 SCC 444, Mr. Rodrigues submitted that the Reference Court ought to have 4 made deduction of 70 % considering that the acquired land was vast piece of land as compared to the plot in sale deed exhibit AW1/C. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award be set aside. 6. Mr. Aga, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the evidence led by the respondent/ claimant discloses that the acquired land was a levelled land and had many facilities like houses, school, primary school in close proximity. He further submitted that the acquired land was a levelled land and Quepem Court and Power Station were situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired land and as such, the Reference Court was justified in deducting 50 % and fixing the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square meter. He further submitted that in terms of Subh Ram's case (supra), deduction varies from 20 % to 75 % and the same depends upon facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. In view of the rival submissions, the following point arises for determination of the appeal : 5 “Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.30/- per square meter?” 9. The evidence of the Chandrakant Dessai -AW1 discloses that the acquired land was levelled land having cashew trees and other bushes therein and the same was at a distance of about 1 kilometer from Quepem Court and 700 meters from Xeldem power station. The nearest market was at Quepem, which was at the distance of 2 kilometers from the acquired land. All Government offices such as Sub- registrar's office, post office were situated at Quepem. The police station was at the distance of 2.5 kilometers from the acquired land. Temple was at the distance of about 2 kilometers. There was telephone facility, water and electricity connection in the acquired land. There was also houses in the adjoining property. Nearest primary school was at a distance of 200 meters from the acquired land. The acquired land was also suitable for construction purpose. 10. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Reference Court was justified in deducting 50% 6 from the market rate mentioned in the sale deed exhibit AW1/C. Admittedly, the said plot was situated at a distance of about 500 meters from the acquired land and was also similar to the acquired land except that the acquired land was a large tract of land. In the case of Subh Ram (supra), the Apex Court held that if the valuation of a large extent of agricultural land is based on the sale price of a small developed plot in a private layout, then the standard deductions should be 1/3rd for roads, etc. plus 1/3rd for expenditure of development, in all 2/3rd as development cost from the value of the small plot. The Apex Court further held that the percentage of deduction may however vary between 20 % to 75 % depending on several circumstances. The Apex Court further held that the percentage of deduction will be applied fully where the acquired land has no development, but where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed and having amenities like electricity, water etc. then the development costs will be modulated with reference to the extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of notification. 11. Indisputably, the plot in sale deed exhibit AW1/C was 500 square meters whereas the acquired land was 33950 7 square meters. The sale deed plot was a developed plot whereas the acquired land was not developed. This being the position, in my opinion, appropriate deduction will have to be made towards development cost and for largeness of the acquired land. Considering the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the plot in the sale deed exhibit AW1/C, in my opinion appropriate deduction would be 60 % towards development costs and largeness. Therefore, the market rate of the acquired land as on the date of publication of Section 4 notification works out to Rs.24/- per square meter. The respondent is, therefore, entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.24/- per square meter. Needless to mention that the respondent is also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. 12. In the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA