1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.275 OF 2006 1. Deputy Collector & SDO, Land Acquisition Officer, Quepem, Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division XXV, (Roads), PWD, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. …. Appellants V/s The President, Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Molcornem, Quepem, Goa. …. Respondent Shri G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. None for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 11th AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 14/07/2005, passed by the learned Reference Court whereby an excess amount of Rs.11/- per square metre was directed to be paid to the respondent in respect of the land acquired in the above proceedings. 2. By Government notification dated 5/07/1988, issued under 2 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as “the said Act”) and published in the Official Gazette dated 8/09/1988, land admeasuring 20375 square metres was acquired for the construction of the road to Zonardem village in Village Panchayat of Molcornem in Quepem Taluka. Amongst the lands acquired an area of 2300 square metres from the property surveyed under no.1/2 was also acquired for the said purpose. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 11/10/1991, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Re.1/- per square metre besides value of the trees. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.50/- per square metre for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 14/07/2005, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.13/- per square metre and after deducting Rs.2/- per square metre directed the payment of an excess amount of Rs.11/- per square metre for the land acquired. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3 3. Shri Guru Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the deductions effected by the Reference Court of 50% ought to have been 66% on account of development charges in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2010 (1) SCC 444 in the case of Subh Ram & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr. The learned Government Advocate has further submitted that the Sale Deed plot was in respect of a developed piece of land wherein an area of 600 square metres was sold at the price of Rs.24/- per square metre. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the land acquired was undeveloped land and, as such, for the purpose of developing the said area the statutory restriction of keeping of open spaces, construction of internal roads have to be complied with to obtain development sanction. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above and pointed out that it was held therein that for the purpose of developing charges 66% is to be deducted on such count when the acquired land is undeveloped and the Sale Instance is a developed plot. The learned Government Advocate further pointed out that there is no material on record for any enhancement 4 of compensation and, as such, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The respondents though served have failed to remain present. 5. On perusal of the evidence on record and the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the Reference Court was justified to direct the payment of excess amount of Rs.11/- per square metre for the land acquired. 6. On perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the respondent in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation has examined Kashinath G. Gaonkar as AW1. He is stated to be the attorney of the respondents. He has stated in his deposition that the Government has acquired about 2000 square metres from the property belonging to the respondents surveyed under no.1/2. He has further produced a Sale Deed dated 1/08/1987, which is at Exhibit 9, whereby land was sold 5 admeasuring 618 square metres being plot no.15 for total price of Rs.15,050/- which works out to Rs.24/- per square metre. He has further submitted that the land is situated in the same village at a distance of about 3.5 kms from the acquired land. He has further stated that the land purchased therein was bharad land. He has also stated that in the property acquired there are two residential houses besides one temple. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the Sale Deed plot was a plot which was sub-divided. He has further admitted that the road has been constructed to provide access to the temple. He has denied the suggestion that the land of the Sale Deed plot and the land acquired was not similar. 7. The Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment has relied upon the said Sale Deed dated 19/08/1987 as the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Considering that the sale deed plot was in the same village of Molcornem, though at a distance of 3.5 kms and considering that nothing has been disclosed by the respondent to show any dissimilarity with the land acquired and the Sale Deed plot, I find there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in considering the said Sale Instance at Exhibit 9 as the basis for determining the market value 6 of the acquired land. The learned Judge has further found that both the lands are bharad lands and similar to one another, but however, considering that the sale deed plot was a sub-divided plot and the acquired land was admeasuring 2300 square metres, the learned Judge has effected deduction of 50%. The deductions which have been effected are 20% on account of the developing charges besides 15% towards the provision of internal roads and another 15% towards open spaces. Such deductions have been effected after giving an appreciation of 10%, considering that there was a gap of one year between the date of the Sale Deed and the notification in the present case. 8. Considering the evidence on record, I find that the Reference Court has not committed any error in relying upon the Sale Instance at Exhibit 9 for the purpose of determining the market value of the land. Perusal of the said Sale Deed suggests that the permissions for the development were obtained by the vendor therein. The area developed was about 21,600 square metres and the area of the plot sold pursuant to the said sale deed was 600 square metes for the price of Rs.24/- per squae metre. The area acquired in the present proceedings is 2300 square metres. 7 Considering the said area, the deduction of 50% effected by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unjust. The judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Government Advocate itself provides that the development charges can range between 25% to 75%, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be said that the Sale Deed plot is a very small plot of land which is being considered as the basis for determining the market value of the large chunk of land so that high deductions are to be effected. Considering the material on record and as there is no dispute with regard to the similarity between the land acquired and the land which was subject matter of the said Sale Deed, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment directing the respondent to pay an excess amount of Rs.11/- per square metre. The Reference Court after scrutinizing the evidence on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for an excess amount of Rs.11/- per square metre for the land acquired. The amount so determined cannot be said to be unjust, on the contrary considering the material on record such compensation appears to be reasonable and fair. 9. Considering the overall evidence on record, I find no 8 justification to interfere in the impugned judgment determining the compensation for the land acquired. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the above appeal and, as such, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-