-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2006 1. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. Cell, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineering Works Division XVIII (R), P.W.D., Ponda-Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s Shri Audumbar J. Shinkre, Panditwada, Ponda, Goa. …... Respondent Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 29 th July, 2011. JUDGMENT The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 23.03.2005, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, at Panaji, in Land Acquisition Case no. 29/2005. By a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), dated 23.03.2002, an area admeasuring 2550 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 97/0 located at Curti Village, Ponda Taluka was acquired for the purpose of constructing a road from Malvadda to Copperwada in Ponda Taluka. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 30.09.2003, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondents sought a reference under Section18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and -2- claimed a sum of Rs.300/- per square metre for the land acquired. By the Judgment and Award dated 23.03.2006, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants preferred the present Appeal. 4. Shri G. Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate, has assailed the impugned Judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has mis- appreciated the evidence on record and held that the Respondents are entitled for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale instance produced by the Respondents in support of the claim for enhancement is not comparable to the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has not at all considered or appreciated the evidence on record whilst passing the impugned Judgment and has come to an erroneous conclusion that the Respondents are entitled for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record as well as in the impugned Judgment and pointed out that there is no material at all adduced by the Respondents to establish their claim for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel as such submitted that the impugned Judgment be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has supported the impugned Judgment and stated that considering that the Respondents have not filed any cross objection, there is no case for any -3- interference in the impugned Judgment as the amount awarded by the Reference Court is fair, just and reasonable. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land in the vicinity of the acquired land has the potentiality of being used for non- agricultural purpose and considering the Sale Deeds produced by the Respondent in support of his claim for enhancement, the Respondent is entitled for a much higher compensation. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is meagre and ought to have been much higher considering the evidence on record. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment and stated that there is no case made out for any interference. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following points for determination arise in the present Appeal : 1. Whether the Reference Court is justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre ? 9. In support of his claim for enhancement, the applicant has examined himself as Aw.1 and he has stated that the property surveyed under no.97 is situated in Village Curti, Ponda Taluka, of which an area of 2550 square metre was acquired for the said purpose pursuant to the Notification dated 12.02.2002. He has further stated that the market value of the land in the year 2002 was about Rs.300/- per square metre. He has also stated that the said land was serviced by all the amenities which include power supply, water, roads, etc., and the land stands adjacent to the National Highway Panaji-Belgaum road and is just about1.5 kilometres from the City bus stand of Ponda. He has further stated that there was a -4- lot fo development in the vicinity of the acquired land at the relevant time. He has produced the Sale Deed dated 17.10.1988 in respect of a property situated close to the acquired land at a distance of about 1.5 kilometres. He has also produced the Sale Deed dated 18.06.1990 in respect of the property situated at a distance of one kilometre from the acquired land. Another Sale Deed dated 16.01.1991 in respect of land located at a distance of 1.5 kilometres is also been referred to in the said affidavit. Another sale instance dated 20.09.2000 has also been produced in respect of the property situated at a distance of one kilometre from the acquired land. He has further stated that the lands of the said sale instances have similar potentialities. The said Sale Deeds have been duly produced on record. In the cross examination, he has stated that the acquired land is at a distance of one kilometres away from the National Highway Ponda to Belgaum. He has further stated that the land acquired has a width of six metres. He has denied the suggestion that the sale instances are more than one kilometres from the acquired land. 10. The next witness examined is Shri Ravindra V. Lamba, who is a registered valuer and has stated that he had visited the site in the year 2002. He has also stated in para 6 of the affidavit that sale instances are referred by him for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the acquired land. He has further stated that the Sale Deed plots are located at a close distance from he acquired land. He has further stated that the said property had an independent access and, according to him, that the acquired land had a value of Rs.400/- per square metre. He has also produced the valuation report. In the cross examination, he has admitted that there is no fix formula for valuing the land. He has further stated that -5- the said Sale Deed exhibit Pw.1/C is located in Ponda. He has also admitted that the Sale Deed exhibit Aw.1/D is a developed plot in Ponda City. The Sale Deed exhibit Pw.1/E is also situated at Ponda. The Sale Deed exhibit P.w.1/F is a developed plot situated at Ponda. He has further admitted that the acquired land is agricultural land as per the Survey Records. He has further admitted that the acquired land is abutting National Highway and that a set back is required to be kept for the purpose of construction from the National Highway. He has denied the suggestion that the acquired land is located at a distance of more than one kilometre from Ponda city. He has further stated that he had no document to show that the acquired land was coming within the settlement zone. 11. The next witness examined is C. V. Anantharaman, on behalf of the Appellants, who has stated in the affidavit that the said acquired land is an agricultural land and the Ponda market is about two and half to three kilometres from the acquired land and the Government Hospital is at a distance of three and half kilometres from the acquired land. He has admitted that between two to three kilometres from Ponda, there is no other Village in the his cross examination. He has further admitted that the Goa Dairy is located in the Village of Curti. 12. The learned Judge after hearing the parties and after appreciation of evidence on the basis of the Sale Deed plots which are developed plots, fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre after making deductions. 13. On perusal of the evidence on record, I find that though the Sale -6- Deeds produced by the Respondents are located in Ponda City and the land acquired is situated at Curti Village, nevertheless, considering the distance between the two places, the said sale instances can form the basis for the purpose of fixing the compensation provided adequate deductions are effected on account of the dissimilar factors. In the present case, there is no dispute that the land acquired is in Curti Village and considering the cross examination of the valuer, substantial area would have to be left out for the purpose of set back as it was admitted that the land acquired was adjoining National Highway. But, however, the civic amenities appear to be available within a radius of two to four kilometres from the acquired land. Considering all these aspects and the price as mentioned in the sale instances, which disclose the price of developed plots in the year 1988 at Rs.220/- per square metre and in the year 2000 at Rs.680/- per square metre, I find that the market value of the acquired land as determined by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre can by no stretch of imagination be considered to be exorbitant. In fact, for the construction of the Ponda By-pass passing through the same Village of Curti in respect of the Notification in the year 1991, the Division Bench of this Court had fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.154/- per square metre. The said Judgment of this Court was upheld by the Apex Court in the Judgment which is reported in 2009(10) S.C.C. 686, in the case of State of Goa v. Gopal Baburao Gaudo & Ors. Considering that the notification therein was in the year 1991, irrespective of other factors, I find that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre cannot be considered to be excessive. The Respondents have not filed any Cross Objections nor any Cross Appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Considering the overall evidence on record, I find that there is no reason to -7- interfere in the impugned Judgment whereby the compensation has been fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.60/-. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 14. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above Appeal and, consequently, the Appeal stands dismissed with no Orders as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*