1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.279 OF 2004 & CROSS-OBJECTION NO.13/2005. FIRST APPEAL NO.279 OF 2004 The Executive Engineer, Works Division, XXI, (PHE), PWD, Fatorda, Margao .. Appellant Versus Mrs. Maria Parras D'Cruz Behind Municipality Margao, Goa 1(a) Shri Novil Parras D'Cruz Behind Municipality, House No.184/185, Margao, Goa (Nephew of the deceased) (b) Mrs. Tina Parras D'Cruz Wife of Novil Parras D'Cruz, Behind Municipality, House No.184/185, Margao, Goa. .. Respondents Mrs. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the respondents. CROSS-OBJECTION NO.13/2005 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.279 OF 2004 Mrs. Maria Parras D'Cruz (now deceased) Through her L.R.s :- 1) Shri Novel Parras D'Cruz and 2 2) Mrs. Tina Parras D'Cruz; both major in age, residents of House No.184/185, Behind Margao Municipality Margao, Goa. .. Applicants. Versus The Executive Engineer, Works Division, XXI, Public Works Department, Government of Goa, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. .. Respondent Mr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the applicants. Mrs. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 18 th November, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant in F.A. No.279/2004 / respondent in Cross- Objection No.13/2005 and Mr. Singbal, learned Counsel for the respondents in F.A. No.279/2004 / the applicants in Cross Objection No.13/2005. 2. The applicant has filed First Appeal No.279/2004 challenging the judgment and award dated 29th September, 2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Margao in Land 3 Acquisition Case No.215/1993 partly allowing the reference sought by the respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('The Act' for short) enhancing the compensation in respect of the acquired land from Rs.50/- to Rs.200/-. 3. The respondents in the appeal has preferred Cross Objection claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square metre. 4. Vide Notification dated 9th December, 1986 issued by Government of Goa under Section 4 of The Act, the Government of Goa notified its intention to acquire 167 square metres of land bearing Survey Nos.149/34, 180/1 and 180/4 of Margao for public purpose i.e. construction of underground drainage scheme to Margao Town North Zone, Part III. The respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square metre. By award dated 31st March, 1989 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.50/- per square metre in respect of the above referred land belonging to the respondents. 5. Not satisfied with the compensation, the 4 respondents filed an application under Section 18 of The Act and claimed Rs.1,000/- per square metre. 6. In Land Acquisition Case No.215/1993, the respondents examined only one witness namely AW1- Novil Parras D'Cruz (Attorney of the applicant), who produced two sale deeds and two awards, the details of which are as under : Sr. No. Exhibits Particulars 1) Exh.15 Sale Deed dated 04/12/1985 @ Rs.146/- per square metre. 2) Exh.16 Sale Deed dated 28.01.1990- @ Rs.546/- per square metre. 3) Exh.17 Judgment & Award dated 15.03.1997 passed in LAC no.100/92- @ Rs.200/- per square metre. 4) Exh.18 Judgment & Award dated 27.01.2003 passed in LAC no.292/1993- @ Rs.200/- per square metre. No evidence was led on behalf of the appellant. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award enhanced the compensation in respect of the acquired land from the rate of Rs.50/- to 200/- per square metre. 7. Both the parties have challenged the award by 5 filing appeal and cross-objection respectively. 8. Mrs. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the award in Land Acquisition Case No.100/1992 in which the land at a distance of about 100 metres from the acquired land was acquired and compensation was fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. She further submitted that the Reference Court also could not have placed reliance upon the award in Land Acquisition Case No.292/1993 in which the land acquired was situated at a distance of about 200 metres from the acquired land. Mrs. Linhares, therefore, submitted that the compensation granted in favour of the respondents is highly excessive and, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Per contra, Mr. Singbal, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Reference Court ought to have granted higher compensation than what was granted by the impugned judgment and award. 10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions 6 and perused the record. 11. In view of the rival submissions, the following point arises for determination in the appeal : “Whether the market rate of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land is fair and just ? If not, what was the market rate of the acquired land as on the date of publication of Section 4 Notification ?” 12. Perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the appellant placed reliance upon the two sale deeds and two awards, which have been referred above. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the award passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.292/1993 in which the land was acquired by the very same Notification and the same was at a distance of about 200 metres from the acquired land. The Reference Court also relied upon the fact that the said award was not challenged by the appellant herein. The Reference Court, therefore, fixed the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. 7 13. In my considered opinion, the approach of the Reference Court is in consonance with the well settled principles governing fixation of the price of the land in land acquisition matters. Since the Reference Court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per square in respect of the land forming the subject matter of the Land Acquisition Case No.292/1993, which was not challenged by the appellant and was situated in close proximity of the acquired land in the present case at a distance of about 200 metres, in my considered view, the Reference Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the said award and fixing the market rate of the acquired land in the present case. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and award. In my considered opinion, no case has been made out by the respondents in the appeal for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Reference Court. 14. In the result, therefore, the appeal as well as the cross-objection are dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA 8