1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 49 OF 1999 1. State of Goa, Rep. by the Dy. Collector, and Land Acquisition Officer, Quepem – Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division XXI (PHE), Public Works Department, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. .... Appellants V/s Smt. Sumati Yeshwant Naik, House No. 74, Pedda, Donda, Margao-Goa. .... Respondent Ms. W. Coutinho, Government Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 6th JUNE, 2008 ORAL JUDGEMENT : Heard Ms. Coutinho, the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the appellant. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 28/9/1998 of the learned Reference Court by which compensation payable to the respondent has been enhanced from Rs. 50/- per sq. mt. to Rs. 180/- per sq. mt. 3. The respondent has chosen to remain absent. By notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1881, published on Gazette 2 dated 27/02/1987, the Government had acquired 2082 square mt. of the respondent's land for the purpose of construction of an underground drainage system for Margao town and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded to the applicant compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. mt. Dissatisfied with the said award, the respondent preferred an application for reference and before the Reference Court, the respondent relied upon an award/Exhibit 16 by which a part of their property was earlier acquired, on or about 11/08/1978, for the purpose of setting up telephone exchange building. In that reference, the respondent was awarded Rs. 200/- per sq. mt. by the Reference Court. 4. The learned Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the access which passed through the suit property was their own access for which the public had no right. The learned Reference Court also found that the respondent's evidence through her attorney, showed that the nature of the acquired land was similar to the land acquired by the said award/Exhibit-16. In fact it could not have been different considering that it was part of the very property of the respondent, in the absence of any other evidence. The learned Reference Court also found that the award/Exhibit-16 could be used as a comparable award for the purpose of fixing the market price of the acquired land but after making certain deduction. The learned Reference Court accepted the market value of Rs. 200/- per sq. mt. awarded to the respondent 3 under Exhibit-16 and then enhanced the price at 10% per year for a period of 8 years and arrived at the figure of Rs. 360/- per sq. mt. The learned Reference Court noted that the acquired land had minus factors such as it was only a strip of land and was adjoining a road which goes from Fatima Convent to the Police Station and as such, an area of the acquired land would normally come within set back area. After taking deduction of 50% from the price of Rs. 360/- per sq. mt., the learned Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 180/- per sq. mt. 5. In fact, the learned Government Advocate has not been able to point out that the approach adopted by the Reference Court was wrong or improper. In my view, no fault could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Reference Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, fixing the market value at Rs. 180/- per sq. mt. It is to be noted that compensation is required to be fixed by adopting a pragmatic approach. There should not be unjust enrichment on the part of the Government nor there should be undue deprivation on the part of the owner. 6. As a result, I find there is no merit in this appeal. Consequently the same is hereby dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-