1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2003. 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (SIP), I. D. Complex, Gogol, Margao, Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division VI, PWD, Fatorda, Margao .. Appellants Versus Confire de Monte Peidade of Holy Spirit Church, Margao .. Respondent. Mr. A. Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, 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 26th February, 2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Margao in Land Acquisition Case no.307/1992 partly allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('The Act' for short). 2. Vide notification dated 23rd August, 1989 issued 2 under Section 4 of the Act, which was published in Official Gazette dated 12th October, 1989, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for public purpose namely improvement of black topping of Duguem-Botlem road at Nuvem. An area of 875 square meters from survey no,.189/2 admeasuring 12000 square meters belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square meter and claimed Rs.16,500/- towards 11 coconut trees existing in the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer (The LAO) awarded Rs.20/- per square meter. The respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs. 50/- per square meter and claimed compensation of Rs.16,500/- for the trees. 3. In Land Acquisition Case No.307/1992, the respondent examined three witnesses namely Vincence D'Silva- AW1- Attorney of the respondent, George Goes -AW2 – owner of the adjoining land whose land was also acquired by the same notification and Earnest Moniz-AW3 – expert. The appellants herein examined one witness -Mr. P. P. Raikar. The respondent placed reliance upon sale deed dated 3rd March, 1981 exhibit AW1/B, sale deed dated 6th August, 3 1982 exhibit AW1/C, sale deed dated 23rd January, 1990 exhibit AW1/D and award of LAO in case no. 16/68/87-88 exhibit AW1/E by which compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per square meter was awarded in respect of the land at a distance of about 200 meters. The respondent also placed reliance upon the award dated 16th February, 2000 exhibit AW1/F whereunder George Goes was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.52/- per square meter. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the award dated 16th February, 2000 and granted compensation at Rs.52/- per square meter and Rs.16,300/- towards 11 coconut trees. 4. Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the award dated 16th February, 2000 exhibit AW1/F for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land. He further submitted that the said award was challenged by the appellants herein and this Court has reduced the compensation to Rs.48/- per square meter and, therefore, the respondent is at the most entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.48/- per square meter. He further submitted that no reliance could have been placed on the report of the Zonal Agricultural Officer exhibits AW1/G since the same was not 4 accepted by the Government and the same was not submitted to the LAO before making the award. 5. Per contra,Mr. Ferreira, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and award. 6. In view of the rival submissions and findings given by the Reference Court, the following points arise for determination in the appeal : (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.52/- per square meter ? (ii) Whether the Reference Court was justified in awarding Rs.16,300/- towards 11 coconut trees existing in the acquired land ? 7. The evidence led by the respondent herein discloses that the adjoining land belonging to George Goes - AW2 was also acquired by the same notification and he was awarded Rs.52/- per square meter in respect of the said acquired land. The State Government preferred an appeal against the said award and this Court by judgment and order dated 27th November, 2008, reduced the compensation to 5 Rs.48/- per square. The evidence led by the respondent also discloses that the acquired land belonging to the respondent and the land of George Goes were similar and the property of Goes was next to the acquired land. This being the position, the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance upon the award made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case no.306/1992 dated 16th February, 2000. However, the fact remains that the said award has been partly modified and this Court by judgment and order dated 27th November, 2008 passed in F.A. No.118/2000, has reduced the compensation to Rs.48/- per square meter. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the respondent is also entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.48/- per square meter, the land of the respondent being similar to the land of George Goes. 8. In so far as compensation awarded in respect of 11 coconut trees is concerned, no doubt the report of the Zonal Agricultural Officer was after the award was made, but the fact remains that he was officer of the appellant themselves and there is no reason to disbelieve the valuation given by him in respect of 11 coconut trees existing in the acquired land. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.16,300/- 6 awarded towards 11 coconut trees by the Reference Court also cannot be faulted. 9. In the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The market rate of the acquired land is fixed at the rate of Rs.48/- per square meter. The respondent is also held entitled to compensation at Rs.16,300/- in respect of 11 coconut trees. Needless to mention that the respondent is also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. 10. The appeal stands partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA