1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA First Appeal No. 241/2002 1. State of Goa, through the Deputy Collector (LA), Margao, Goa. 2. The Director of Sports and Youth Affairs, Panaji, Goa. ... APPELLANTS V e r s u s 1. Pedro R. Vaz, 2. Mrs. Ezilda Menezes e Vaz, 3. Mr. Oscar Ligorio Vaz, 4. Mr. Rahul Floriano Vaz, All r/o H. No. 224, Near Capel of Fatorda, Margaon, Goa. ... RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M. Salkar, A. G. A. for appellant. Mr. M. B. da costa Sr. Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE: 15 th JULY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is by the State of Goa against judgment of reference Court awarding compensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 72/- per square meters for his 2 land, which was acquired by the appellants. The State acquired two pieces of land belonging to respondents under a Notification dated 10.08.1988 by publication in the Official Gazette. One of the piece of land from Survey No. 75/6 admeasures 18 square meters and another piece of land from Survey No. 98/4 admeasures 1648 square meters. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square meter. This was enhanced by the reference Court to Rs.72/- per square meter. The reference Court relied on three sale instances; (a) AW1/C, 628 Square meters sold at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square meter (b) AW1/D 1126 square meter sold at the rate of Rs. 546/- per square meter and (C) AW1/E admeasuring 500 square meter sold at the rate Rs. 300/- per square meter. The reference Court accepted that the three sale instances were comparable since the sale instances were in respect of the lands at a short distance from the acquired land i.e. about 300 meters and similar to the acquired land except that the said plots were developed pieces of land. The reference Court worked out the average of the price of the sale instance to about Rs. 397/- per square meter as on the date of notification and after deducting 40% amount towards the development charges, the Court worked out the rate of undeveloped land to Rs. 238/- per 3 square meter. However, thereafter, the reference Court has ordered further deduction of 70% on the ground that the acquired land was a strip of land abutting the road and, therefore, no construction was possible. 3. Prima facie the finding of the reference Court ordering further deduction of 70% only on the ground that the acquired land is in a No development Zone being on the side of the road cannot be accepted in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Goa and another ..vs.. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others' (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 686 where the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “4. A long strip of land measuring more than two-thirds of an acre lying alongside and adjoining the highway cannot be treated as a land without value or without any potential for development, merely on the ground that the law relating to highways prohibited construction on either side of the highway, up to a depth of 40 m from the centre of the highway. All that was required to create or realise potential of such land was to annex or merge the said strip of land with the land to its rear. In that event, the strip of land will become the “access” to the rear side land 4 from the main road and will also become the frontage of the aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential and value of the rear side land, as also creating a potential for its own use.” Thus, it is necessary to have the entire matter reconsidered on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Moreover, it would be necessary for the reference Court to take into account judgments in Kasturi and others ..vs.. State of Haryana; (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 354; and Bhagwathula Samanna and others ..vs.. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality; AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2298. In these judgments, the Supreme Court has laid down that it would not be necessary for the reference Court to apply the principle of deduction only because the acquired land is part of a large land if it is capable of development or has value otherwise. It may be observed that the reference Court has proceeded on the basis that one piece of land is a strip admeasuring 7.5 meters in width and 2.25 meters in length whereas the evidence shows that the length of the land is 225 meters. This is a serious error, which needs to be taken into account by the reference Court upon remand. 5 4. In the circumstances, the judgment in appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the reference Court for fresh decision, in accordance with law. All issues are left open. The reference Court shall decide the reference within a period of six months from the date the parties appear before it. The parties are directed to appear before the reference Court on 01.08.2011. Order accordingly. S. A. BOBDE, J. kahale