1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2005 1. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. (Cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Work Division XXV (R), PWD, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …. Appellants V/s 1. Shri Shripad alias Ragunath Madhavrao Pai Kane, 2. Shri Avdhut alias Vassudev Madhavrao Pai Kane, 3. Shri Prassad alias Ganesh Madhavrao Pai Kane, All r/o. Kene Industries, Colmorod, Navelim, Salcete, Goa. .... Respondents Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. P.A. Kholkar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The applicants’ land (of respondents, herein) admeasuring 2 about 775 square metres from survey No.65/2 and 65/1 of the Canaguinim village in Quepem Taluka was acquired by virtue of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published on Gazette dated 10/09/1992 and by award dated 15/03/1996, the learned Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to award Rs.25/- per square metre to the applicants in respect of the acquired land. An amount of Rs.38,185/- was also awarded towards the structures and the trees. Dissatisfied with the said award, the applicants got a reference made and claimed enhancement at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre and Rs.20,000/- in respect of the trees and structures. 3. The applicants in support of the reference examined Shri Shripad Pai Kane (i.e. applicant no.1). The applicants also examined Shri Sakharam Bhende as their expert. The applicants produced several documents, particularly, Exhibit 17, a sale deed dated 1/10/1990 by which a plot of land was sold at the rate of Rs.126.30 situated in village Velim in Salcete Taluka. The applicants also relied upon an award Exhibit 21-A dated 11/08/1998 by which compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.55/- per square metre. This award was with reference to acquisition by notification dated 21/07/1987. The learned Reference Court has 3 taken note of the location of the acquired property and has stated that it was located at a distance of about 1 km from Canaguinim Panchayat office which in turn was just about 100 metres from the acquired property. There were residential houses on both the sides along the river Sal and Banks, medical stores, fish and vegetable market were within a radius of about 500 metres and there was a church at a distance of about 1 km. The learned Reference Court has also noted that there was electricity, water pipeline by the side of the road, which facts were stated by the applicants' witnesses. Thereafter, the learned Reference Court referred to the sale deed at Exhibit 17 dated 1/10/1990 by which sub plot no.4 was sold at the rate of Rs.126.30 per square metre which plot was at a distance of about 300 metres or so away from acquired land. The learned Reference Court then took note of the fact that there was a gap of two years between the date of sale and the date of notification and if enhancement was granted at 10% per year, the rate would work out to Rs.153/- per square metre. The learned Reference Court noted that the acquired land had a slope and there was water logging and, therefore, it would require expenditure towards filling, in case the property was to be sub-divided into plots. The learned Reference Court then taking a further deduction of 50% fixed the price at Rs.76.50. Then the learned Reference Court referred to the 4 award Exhibit 21-A dated 11/08/1998 which gave a rate of Rs.55/- per square metre. The learned Reference Court noted that the land of the award Exhibit 21-A was a coconut garden and was similar to the acquired land and was located at a distance of about 500 metres from the acquired land and considering that there was a gap of about 5 years from the date of the notification of the award and the present acquisition, enhanced the price by 10% on compounding basis and fixed the market value at Rs.88.50, but considering that the acquired land was sloppy and water logging while the land of one Exhibit 21-A was not, took a further deduction and fixed the market value at Rs.79.50 per square metre and, therefore, took an average of Rs.76.50 and Rs.79.50 and fixed the compensation payable to the applicants at the rate of Rs.78/- per square metre. 4. Shri Vahidulla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Government/appellants submits that fixing the compensation payable on the basis of Exhibit 21-A was understandable, but what is not understandable was that fixing the compensation payable on the basis of Exhibit 17. In case the compensation was fixed, only on the basis of Exhibit 21-A then it would be Rs.88.50 per square metre. The learned trial Court has considered the sale deed Exhibit 17, as well as the award Exhibit 21-A and taking an average has 5 fixed compensation payable at Rs.78/- per square metre which is lower than the compensation assessed on the basis of the award Exhibit 21-A. There could be no dispute that the land of award Exhibit 21-A was within the same Taluka in village Betul and at a distance of about half kilometer. 5. In my view, there is no error committed by the learned Reference Court in arriving at the compensation payable to the applicants at the rate of Rs.78/- per square metre. I find that there is no merit in this appeal. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. Costs are quantified at Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the applicants/respondents. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-