-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2004 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer (North Goa) Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, P. O. Navelim, Salcete, Goa, 403 707. 2. Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Rawanfond, near Margao Railway Station Margao – Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Bhikan Molu Fal Dessai, Bali, Quepem, Goa. 2. Ulhas Rama Fal Dessai, Bali, Quepem, Goa. ….. Respondents Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM: F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 2 nd September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 20th March, 2003, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case no.288/1994. 2. The land of the Respondents was sought to be acquired pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, -2- (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), dated 06.06.1991, admeasuring an area of 7100 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 44/1 for the construction of a new B.G. Line of Konkan Railway. By an Award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said Award, the Respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation for the land acquired and claimed that the market value of the land acquired was Rs.100/- per square metre. Besides the said amount, the Respondents also claimed compensation for the coconut trees as existing in the acquired land. By Judgment and Award dated 20.03.2003, the learned District Judge partly allowed the said reference and determined the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.14/- per square metre. The remaining claim of the Respondents came to be rejected. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal. 4. Shri E. Afonso, the learned Advocate for the Appellants, has submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected himself in determining the market value of the land acquired as on the date of Section 4 Notification. He further submitted that the Reference Court has rightly discarded the two Sale Deeds produced by the Respondents at exhibit Aw.1/A and exhibit Aw.1/B and, as such, the question of enhancing any compensation in favour of the Respondents does not arise at all. He further submitted that -3- the Appellants have produced the Sale Deed at exhibit 16, which is in respect of the same property which is the subject matter of Sale Deed at exhibit Aw.1/B wherein the whole property was purchased at the rate of Rs.3/- per square metre. He further submitted that the Reference Court whilst relying upon the Sale Deed at exhibit 17/Rw.1/A, ought to have given deductions on account of dissimilarities with the land acquired which would disclose that the market value of land as on the date of Section 4 Notification was Rs.12/- per square metre as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. The Respondents though served, have failed to remain present. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and on going through the records, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal :- POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.14/- per square metre ? 7. On perusal of the records, I find that Aw.1 in his deposition has stated that an area of 7100 square metres was acquired by the Appellants from the property surveyed under no. 44/1 situated at Balli and that in view of the dispute between the parties, a reference under Section 30 of the said Act is pending before the District Court. He further stated that in the remaining -4- portion of the property acquired, he had a house and there were coconut trees and other trees belonging to him. He has further stated that one Manguesh Sinai Ambo had sold land to Vinayak Fal Dessai in the year 1991 at the rate of Rs.150/- per square metre and the Sale Deed land is at a distance of 400 metres from the acquired land. The said Sale Deed is at exhibit Aw.1/A. He also produced another Sale Deed at exhibit Aw.1/B wherein a property in the year 1989 was sold at the rate of Rs.100/- per square metre which is also located at a distance of 400 metres from the acquired land. 8. In his cross examination, he has admitted that the land which was subject matter of the said two Sale Deeds is along the National Highway. He has also admitted that the land subject matter of Aw.1/A is at the same level as the National Highway and that Balli Health Centre is touching the Sale Deed plot. He has further stated in the cross that the property subject matter of exhibit Aw.1/B is at a distance of 8 to 10 metres from the National Highway. He has further admitted that touching the land acquired, one Narendra Fal Dessai had sold the plot to one Keni and that the nature of the two lands are similar. 9. Aw.2, Manguesh Sinai Ambo, who is a Vendor to the Sale Deed at exhibit Aw.1/A was also examined. He has stated that the nature of his land and the nature of the lands subject matter of the Sale Deed are more or less similar. In the cross examination, he has admitted that his entire property -5- which was subject matter of the said Sale Deed is bounded towards the west by the National Highway. The said witness was also confronted with his deposition in Land Acquisition Case no.299/94 and Land Acquisition Case no. 489/85. 10. Aw.3, who has been examined, is Vikas Dessai, who is an expert valuer who has submitted his valuation report. In the cross examination, he has stated that he has not dated the valuation report and by mistake he had not put the date. 11. Rw.1 has been examined, who has produced the Award passed in the proceedings and has also produced a Sale Deed dated 11.11.1987, in respect of the property which was located on the opposite side of the acquired land. The said Sale Deed is at exhibit 15(Rw.1/A). He has also produced another Sale Deed dated 20.08.1987, which is at exhibit 16(Rw.1/B). The said witness has also been cross examined and he has admitted that the Sale Deed at exhibit 16 is at a distance of 800 metres from the Balli market and it is not of the similar nature to the acquired land. 12. The Reference Court after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the Sale Deed at exhibit Aw.1/A and Aw.1/B, were not comparable with the acquired land. The Reference Court has considered that the said Sale Deeds are adjoining the National Highway besides the fact that the same are not in the vicinity of the acquired land. The -6- Reference Court has also considered that the Sale Deed produced by the Appellants demonstrate that the land subject matter of the Sale Deed at exhibit Aw.1/B was sold at much lesser price earlier which has not been explained by the Respondent. I find no infirmity in the said finding of the Reference Court. 13. The Reference Court whilst determining the market value of land has relied upon the Sale Deed produced by the Respondents which is at exhibit Rw.1/A. The said Sale Deed is dated 11.11.1987 and the price mentioned therein is at the rate of Rs.10/- per square metre. On perusal of the said Sale Deed, one finds that the plot is bounded towards South by Balli- Admen road and on the east by a road. Aw.1 in his cross examination has admitted that touching his property, one Narendra Fal Dessai had sold a plot of one Keni. The said plot is similar in nature to his property. This admission on the part of Aw.1 demonstrates that the said sale instances are similar to the acquired land. The Reference Court was justified as such to rely upon the said Sale Deed to determine the market value of acquired land. The Reference Court considering that the said Sale Deed is of the year 1987 and the Notification in the present case was issued in the year 1991, has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.14/- per square metre. I find no justification for interference in the market value of land as determined by the Reference Court. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 14. In view of the above, there is no merit in the above Appeal and -7- the same as such stand dismissed with no Orders as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*