1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 35/2000 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.5/2000 FIRST APPEAL NO. 35/2000 1) Dy. Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Quepem, Goa. 2) Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (R&B), Public Works Department, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. ....... Appellants. V/s. Shri Efigenio Dias, r/o. Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa. ....... Respondent. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the respondent. CROSS OBJECTION NO.5/2000 Shri Efigenio Dias, Residing at House No.41, Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa ...... Cross Objectionist. V/s. 1) Dy. Collector and 2 Land Acquisition Officer, Quepem, Goa. 2) Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (R&B), Public Works Department, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. ....... Respondents. Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the Cross Objectionist. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Govt. Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 8th April, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Award dated 19.7.99 passed by the Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.267/92 by which the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (“the Act” for short) has been partly allowed. 2. The State of Goa issued Notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land for the public purpose viz. construction 3 of a road from Cavelossim Church to Assolna ferry point. The said notification was published in the Official Gazette on 29.11.1983. Land admeasuring 100 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 39/16 of Village Cavelossim belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award dated 24.4.1989 and awarded Rs.25/- per sq. metre in respect of the acquired land. Being dissatisfied, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.150/- per sq. metre. Before the reference Court, the respondents examined two witnesses, namely the claimant Efigiano Dias (AW.1) and Vincent Afonso (AW.2) as an expert and on behalf of the claimant and Shri Armogas Fernandes (RW.1) was examined on behalf of the respondents (appellants herein). The reference Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary led by the parties, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. metre. Aggrieved by the Award, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The respondent has filed cross objection, claiming Res.150/- per sq. metre. 3. Shri Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the reasons given by the 4 reference Court for enhancing the compensation are absolutely untenable in law and, therefore, the impugned Award deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that the acquired land neither had building potential, nor could not have been put to commercial use and, therefore, 10 % yearly increase granted by the reference Court is absolutely unjustified. According to Shri Shirodkar, the acquired land was a strip of land which could not have been used for any commercial purpose and, therefore, the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation. 4. Per contra, Mr. Teles appearing for the respondent submitted that the compensated awarded by the reference Court is wholly inadequate and the reference Court ought to have granted compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq. metre. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In view of the rival submissions, the following point arises for determination in this appeal : 5 Whether the compensation granted by the reference Court in respect of the acquired land is just and proper ? If not, what is the compensation the respondent is entitled to ? 7. The reference Court for the purpose of fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. metre relied upon the Sale Deed dated 17.4.1974 by which the respondent had purchased an area of 447 sq. metres at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq. metre. The reference Court held that since the respondent had relied upon the sale deed in respect of the very same land, it was safe to rely upon the value mentioned in the sale deed as correct value representing the market value of the land. The reference Court, thereafter, granted 10 % yearly increase and fixed the rate of the acquired land as on the date of publication of Section 4 Notification at the rate of Rs.56/- per sq. metre. The reference Court granted further enhancement of 5 % relying upon the evidence of respondent to the effect that after purchase of the land in the year 1974 he had levelled the land and he had constructed shops in the property. The respondent had also kept 3 metres wide access in the said land. The reference Court considered these circumstances and granted further increase of 5 % and arrived at 6 the figure of Rs.60/- per sq. metre. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned award. No doubt the acquired land had no building potential at the time of publication of Section 4 notification, but the fact remains that the very same land was purchased in the year 1974 at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq. metre. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that during the period 1974 to 1983 the land prices in the State of Goa have increased substantially. Moreover, the Apex Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that normal yearly increase in the rates of land must be taken at 10 %. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the reference Court has rightly granted escalation at the rate of 10 % per annum and has rightly further granted 5 % increase for the development carried out by the respondent in the land purchased by him, which position has not been seriously disputed by the appellants. In view of this factual position, the compensation fixed by the reference Court cannot be said to be shocking, so as to warrant interference in appeal. The reference Court has applied the correct principles while fixing the market rate of 7 the acquired land. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned award. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal and the cross objection are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. A.P. LAVANDE, J. ssm.