-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2006 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2006 1. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. Cell, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (R & B), P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s Shri Damodar Narcinva Naik, R/o. Saket, Monte, Margao, Goa. (Above are the registered addresses of the Parties) …... Respondent FIRST APPEAL NO. 279 OF 2006 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. Cell, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (R -S), P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s Shri Damodar Narcinva Naik, V. N. Naik Road, P. O. Box 43, Margao-Goa 403 601. (Above are the registered addresses of the Parties) …... Respondent Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. M. S. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent. -2- Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 22 nd November, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri M. S. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Amey Kakodkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Respondents. 2. Both the Appeals were heard together pursuant to Orders passed by this Court as they pertain to the lands are part of the same property and were required to be disposed of together. 3. Both the above Appeals challenge the Judgments and Award passed in Land Acquisition Case nos. 57/2000 and 163/2000 dated 15.04.2006, whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act') for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed. The compensation was enhanced for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.120/- per square metre besides statutory benefits. 4. Pursuant to the Notification under Land Acquisition Act dated 22.10.1991, land admeasuring an area of 301 square metres in First Appeal no. 278/2006 and an area of 16 square metres in First Appeal no. 279/2006 from the property surveyed under no. 8/11 and 11/2 respectively, situated within the Municipal limits of Margao City, were acquired for the widening of Arlem-Ambaji road. By an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the said Act, a compensation was offered for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.4/- per -3- square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per square metre. The Reference Court after framing the issues and recording of evidence and hearing the parties, partly allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation for the land acquired to Rs.120/- per square metre by Judgment and Award dated 15.04.2006. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeals. 6. Shri Amey Kakodkar, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants, has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Sale Deed relied upon by the Reference Court is not at all comparable with the land acquired and, as such, the question of relying on such sale instance for the purpose of determination the market value of the land acquired does not arise at all. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further points out that the land acquired was reserved for road widening and, as such, the question of relying upon the sale instance of a developed plot for the purpose of determination of market value of such land would not arise at all. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering that the FAR available to the Respondents was already consumed as the land was reserved for road widening, the question of enhancing the compensation for the land acquired would not arise. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned Judgments and pointed out that the learned Judge has misconstrued the evidence on record and has erroneously enhanced the compensation for the land acquired. -4- 7. On the other hand, Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court is at a distance of less than one kilometre from the land acquired and is comparable to such land and, as such, the Reference Court was justified to rely upon the said sale instance as the basis for fixing the compensation. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the land acquired is situated in Margao City which is well known to be a commercial city where the prices of land are increasing day by day on account of tremendous demand for such land in the vicinity. Learned Counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is in fact on the lower side considering the potentiality of the land acquired and taking into account that the Respondent has not filed any Cross Objections, the question of any interference by this Court would not arise. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the evidence on record, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeals : 1. Whether the Reference Court is justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.120/- per square metre ? 9. Considering the material on record, the Reference Court has relied upon a sale instance which is located in the vicinity of the land acquired dated 20.06.1990 which is exhibit 16. The Sale Deed suggests that an area of 431 square metres was sold for a price of Rs.200/- per square metre approximately. -5- The evidence further discloses that the said land subject matter of the said sale instance is in the vicinity of the land acquired and has comparable features to the land acquired. Considering that the land acquired was for the purpose of road widening, the Reference Court has affected a deduction of 50 percent and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.120/- per square metre. There is no dispute that the land acquired is located in a commercial city of Margao, besides the fact that the said land is adjoining the main road. The evidence further discloses that the main highway is in the vicinity of the land acquired. Considering the nature of the said land acquired, there can be no doubt that such land had potentiality for being used as non-agricultural land. This Court whilst disposing of the First Appeal Nos. 256/2004 and 274/2004, in respect of land acquired pursuant to a Notification dated 08.07.1991 in the vicinity of the land acquired which is on the other side of the main road, had accepted the compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. Considering the said aspect, I find that the amount of compensation fixed by the impugned Judgment cannot be said to be exorbitant or on the higher side. The amount awarded is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and, as such, the question of any interference in the impugned Judgment would not arise at all. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned Judgment and, as such, both the Appeals stand dismissed with no Orders as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*