1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.32 OF 2005 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa KRCL, Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, P.O. Navelim, Salcete-Goa. 2. The Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Rawanfond, Margao, Goa. …. Appellants V/s 1. Mr. Gregorio Rosario Xavier, 2. Mr. Martin Caetano Xavier, Both residents of House No.39, Aquem Baixo, Rawanfond, Navelim, Salcete, Goa. …. Respondents Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Braganza, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 6th OCTOBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against judgment dated 2/04/2004 of the learned Reference Court by which compensation payable has been enhanced from Rs.6.75/- per square metre to Rs.15/- per square metre, based on capitalization of income method. 2. There is no dispute that the applicants' lands of which they were tenants of Communidade of Aquem were acquired by 2 Government pursuant to notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published on Gazette dated 16/05/1991. The acquisition was for the purpose of construction of a depot, concrete sleeper plant, diesel loco shed, etc. for the Konkan Railway Corporation. Although, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.6.75/- per square metre by award dated 1/08/1994, the Land Acquisition Officer ordered that a sum of Rs.0.40 be paid to the Communidade, who were the owners of the land. 3. The applicants had relied upon two sale deeds dated 29/10/1987 and 26/11/1981, but after considering the evidence produced, the learned Reference Court came to the conclusion that the applicants' lands were tenanted paddy fields while those of the sale deeds were not, and therefore did not consider the same for the purpose of enhancing the compensation payable. 4. The learned Reference Court referring to Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 and relying on the judgment of this Court reported in (2000 (2) GLT 81) has held that the applicant could not have used the acquired land for any other purpose than agriculture. 3 5. The applicants had examined an agricultural expert namely Shri Menezes, an Ex-Director of Agriculture of the Government of Goa, who had visited the acquired paddy fields and given his opinion. The learned Reference Court as regards the opinion given by the said Shri Menezes has stated as follows: “26. Turning to the deposition of the Agricultural Valuer, AW2, he has deposed that considering the yield estimated at 6 tones per hectare i.e. 0.6 kgs., per one square metre, the paddy production of 10146 square metres of P.T. Sheet no.268/4, at the prevailing rate @ Rs.400/- per quintal, during 1991 works out to Rs.24,350/- which is the gross income. He deposes that after deducting 50% for cultivation expenses, the net income is Rs.12,175/- which when capitalized by 12 and ½ times, the rate per square metre is assessed to Rs.15/- for agricultural purpose. In respect of P.T. Sheet no.265/6/3, considering that two crops were taken he assessed the value of Rs.30/- per square metre. 27. It is also in the deposition of AW2, that the soil in respect of both the lands was fertile and there was a natural source of water available in both the paddy fields. 28. Learned Advocate Shri V. Diniz submitted that the report dated 2/08/1991 at exhibit 20, corroborates the deposition before the Court. In fact, in the cross-examination of AW2 on page 2, he had deposed that he had visited the plots in July 1991 and he had prepared the report-dated 2/08/1991. He deposed that Roasario Xavier had accompanied him during the visit. Learned Advocate P.K. Gude referred to the report where it is mentioned that Gregario Xavier and Martin Xavier accompanied the valuer. But only on this ground, I do not find any reason to reject the deposition of this witness. The evidence of this witness inspires my confidence and moreover considering that he is the retired Director of Agriculture of the Government of 4 Goa. He has also deposed that he is the Government approved Valuer of Agricultural lands.” 6. The learned Reference Court has relied upon the evidence of the said expert who has taken the multiplier of 12.5%. Shri Bhobe has a grievance to the multiplier applied. However, that multiplier can be even 15% as stated by the Apex Court in the case of Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma V/s. State of Kerala (AIR 1991 SC 2027). The learned Reference Court has accepted the evidence of AW2/Shri Menezes and has assessed the compensation payable. No flaw in his opinion has been pointed out nor any reason why the said opinion could not have been accepted. 7. In my view, the learned Reference Court was right in accepting the opinion, which was well reasoned and fixing the compensation payable on the basis of the same and, therefore, the judgment of the learned Reference Court cannot be faulted. 8. I find there is no merit in this appeal and, consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-