1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2004 WITH STAMP NUMBER 2318 of 2004( CROSS OBJECTION). FIRST APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2004 1 State of Goa, through the Dy. Collector, (L.A.), Margao Goa. 2 The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI, P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …....... Appellants. Versus Smt. Serafina Emedian Sacramanta Fernandes, Major, r/o. Colva, H. No. 15, Pequeno, Vanelim, Salcete, Goa. …....... Respondent. Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. WITH S TAMP NUMBER 2318 of 2004( Cross Objection) Smt. Serafina Emedian Sacramanta Fernandes, major in age, resident of H. No. 15, Pequeno, Vanelim, Salcete, Goa. …....... Appellant. Versus 2 1 Dy. Collector (L.A.) Margao, Goa; and 2 The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI, P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …....... Respondents. None for the appellant. Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 11 th Novmber, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent though served. In cross objection, none for the appellant. Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The appellants have filed the above appeal challenging the Judgment and Award dated 29th October, 2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in 3 Land Acquisition Case No. 104/2001, partly allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short). 3. By notification dated 24th June, 1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Goa notified its intention to acquire 100 square metres of survey no.79/12 and 100 square metres of survey no. 79/14 belonging to the respondent for the purpose of construction of road from Seraulim to Colva in Salcete Taluka. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.124/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 18th August, 1994 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per square metre and Rs.5750/- towards the value of coconut trees. 4. Dissatisfied with the award, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.124/-per square metre and Rs.11250/- for yielding coconut trees and further compensation of Rs.500/- for five coconut saplings. 4 5. In the Land Acquisition Case no.104/2001, the respondent examined three witnesses namely namely AW1 Smt. Serafina Fernandes( Applicant), AW2 Caitan X. Menezes, land valuer and AW3 Shru Audut P. Sawant, who produced valuation report in respect of the trees. Appellants herein did not examine any witness. 6. The Reference Court upon appreciation of the evidence led by the respondent fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square metre and also awarded all statutory benefits under the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation, the appellants have filed the present appeal whereas respondent being aggrieved by inadequacy of the compensation has filed cross objection claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.124/- per square metre as well as higher compensation for the trees. 8. When the matter is called out none appears on behalf of the respondent in the appeal. Hence cross objection filed by the 5 respondent is dismissed for non prosecution. 9. Ms. S. Linharas, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the sale deed dated 11th March, 1986 by which appellants and her husband had sold part of her property bearing survey no. 79/12 admeasuring 1090 square metres to one Rosy N. C. Barbosa at the rate of Rs.45/- per square metre. ( Exhibit 18) inasmuch as the said plot was developed plot whereas the acquired land was a narrow strip of land without any access and, as such, could not have been compared with the sale deed plot. Mrs. S. Linhares, further submitted that although the sale deed dated 11th March, 1986 was in respect of the remaining portion of the acquired land, considering the nature of the sale deed plot and the nature of the acquired land no reliance could have been placed upon the said sale deed and in any case the market value fixed at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre of the acquired land is highly excessive. 10. As stated above, none appears on behalf of the 6 respondent. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and perused the record. 12. In view of the submissions made, the following point arises for determination- Whether the market rate of Rs.30/- per square metre fixed by the Reference Court in respect of the acquired land is excessive? If yes, what is the market rate of the acquired land as on the date of publication of section 4 notification? 13. The Reference Court for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land has relied upon the sale deed dated 11th March, 1986 by which part of the property bearing survey no. 79/12 admeasuring 1090 square metres was sold at Rs. 45/- per square metre. The Reference Court deducted an amount of Rs.20,620/- on the basis of valuation done in respect of four coconut trees from the acquired land and after deducting the value of 15 coconut trees arrived at the figure of Rs.26/- per square 7 metre. The Reference Court also considered that the acquisition in the present case was after a period of almost 5 years and after considering the steep rise in the price of the land fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square metre. 14. The Reference Court has also considered the evidence led by the respondent disclosing that the acquired land was a bharad land with coconut trees, land was levelled land and situated in residential locality and was accessible by foot path to village road situated at a distance of about 150 metres, Colva church, post office, school, mini market etc were at a distance of 1.5 kms from the acquired land and Colva beach was at a distance of about 3 kms from the acquired land. The evidence of the respondent further discloses that the amenities such as electricity, water and telephone were available in the acquired land as on the date of publication of section 4 notification. The Reference Court held that this part of the evidence was not shaken in the cross examination. The Reference Court after considering the location and the nature of the land and the sale deed dated 11th March, 1986 fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre of 8 the acquired land. 15. In my considered opinion, the approach of the Reference Court cannot be faulted. It is well settled that the sale deed in respect of the part of the property which is acquired furnishes the best evidence for fixing the market rate of the acquired land. The evidence led by the respondent discloses that by sale deed dated 11th March, 1986 an area of 1090 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.45/- per square metre which was inclusive of the value of 10 to 15 coconut trees therein. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Reference Court that market value of the land as on the date of publication of Section 4 notification was Rs.26/- per square metre cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference in the appeal. Considering that the acquisition was after a period of almost 5 years the market rate fixed of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square metre cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference in the appeal from an award passed in Land Acquisition Case. It is well settled that fixation of the price in the Land Acquisition Case involves some guess work as held by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. Considering the 9 location of the acquired land, amenities available in or around the acquired land and the sale deed dated 11th March, 1986 in my considered view, the market rate fixed at Rs.30/- per square metre by the Reference Court cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned Judgment and award. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. As stated above, cross objection also stands dismissed for non prosecution. No order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn*