1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.338 OF 2003 1. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. (Cell), Altinho, Panaji-Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. XVII (PHE-N), P.W.D., Porvorim, Bardez-Goa. …. Appellants V/s 1. Gurudas Harishchandra Narvekar 2. Gauri Gurudas Narvekar, 3. Suryakant Harishchandra Narvekar (Since expired through LR's) 3(a) Girijabai Suryakant Narvekar, widow 3(b) Shri Sammer Suryakant Narvekar, 16 years (3a is appointed as guardian for 3b) 4. Girijabai Suryakant Narvekar, 5. Chandrakant Harishchandra Narvekar, 6. Chandrabhage Chandrakant Narvekar, 7. Santosh Harishchandra Narvekar, All r/o. Valshi, Bordem, Bicholim, Goa. …. Respondents Shri A. Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S. Karpe holding for Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the 2 Respondents. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri A. Kakodkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Shri S. Karpe holding for Shri J. Godinho, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 19/03/2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Goa, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No.212/1998. 3. Land was acquired belonging to the respondents pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as “the said Act”) admeasuring an area of 795 square metres from the property surveyed under no.52/1,2,3,5 & 6 of village of Bordem in Bicholim Taluka for the purpose of water supply to Assonora from Anjunem Irrigation Project. The notification was dated 16/07/1993. By an award dated 13/08/1996, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied 3 with the said amount, the respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said act and claimed a sum of Rs.200/- per square metre as compensation for the land acquired. By the impugned judgment and award dated 19/03/2003, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.90/- per square metre, besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri A. Kakodkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record and relying upon the Sale Deed at Exhibit 13 while fixing the market value of the acquired land. He further pointed out that the Sale Deed was of a developed plot of a housing colony which was not comparable to the acquired land. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and pointed out that the respondents have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement of the compensation nor to establish the comparability of the Sale Instance at Exhibit 13. 4 The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the land acquired cannot be comparable to the Sale Instance, the respondents have failed to discharge the burden caste on them to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri S. Karpe, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel pointed out that the Sale Instance produced by the respondents at Exhibit 13 discloses that the plot was sold at the rate of Rs.300/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court has minutely examined the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the Sale Instance produced by the respondents is comparable to the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that the amount fixed by the Reference Court is just and proper in the circumstances of the case and, as such, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 5 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal. POINT FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.90/- per square metre. 7. In support of their claim for enhancement, the respondents have examined Prashant Narvekar as AW1, who stated in his deposition that the acquired land is situated in the village of Bordem and the Land Acquisition Officer had offered only a sum of Rs.50/- per square metre, when according to him the market value of the land in the locality is around Rs.300/- per square metre. In support of his claim for enhancement, he has produced sale transaction dated 11/09/2001 by which housing board had sold a plot admeasuring 345.60 square metres for total consideration of Rs.1,03,680. The said Sale Instance is at Exhibit 13. He has further stated that the land acquired is abutting the Mapusa Bicholim road and that the local market, school, I.T.I., Housing Board, Primary School, houses are within the radius of 1.5 kms 6 from the acquired land. In the cross-examination he has stated that there was no electricity and water at the time of Section 4 notification. He has denied the suggestion that the Sale Deed plot was about 800 metres from the acquired land. He has also denied the suggestion that the nearest house is at a distance of about 100 metres. Next witness examined is Raghunath Gawas as AW2. He has stated that his property is at a distance of about half a kilometre away from the acquired land. He has purchased the plot from the Housing Board in the year 1993 and his plot is 10 to 15 metres away from the Bicholim Mapusa road. He has further stated that he has purchased the said plot at the rate of Rs.300/- per square metre. He has further stated that the primary school and I.T.I. are located at a distance of about half a kilometre from his plot. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his land is a developed plot with all the infra structure for development like water, light and road. He has denied the suggestion that the said plot is at a distance of 800 metres from the acquired land. The respondents have examined PWD engineer as RW1. He has stated in his affidavit that the acquired land was bharad in nature and is sloppy. He has further stated that the acquired land is at a distance of about 2.80 kilo metres away from the post office, market place and State 7 Bank of India. He has further stated that the Sale instance at Exhibit 13 is a developed plot of the housing board and that the housing board had undertaken extensive development of the said land. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the housing board has come up within a distance of 800 metres from the acquired land and that the said colony is full of houses. He has denied the suggestion that the acquired land was a leveled land and not sloppy in nature. 8. The learned Judge, while passing the impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that the Sale Deed at Exhibit 13 can form the basis for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per square metre for the land acquired. On perusal of the evidence on record the same discloses that the land acquired had potentiality of being used for non agricultural purposes. Statement made by AW1 to the effect that housing board colony has come up within 800 metres has not been disputed as the appellants themselves admitted that the housing colony was at such a distance. Besides that within the radius of 2 kms the infra structure facilities and amenities such as market, school, bank etc. were available to the acquired land. 8 9. Considering the evidence on record, the Reference Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the land acquired was comparable to the Sale Instance at Exhibit 13. There can be no dispute that the Sale Instance in respect of the said plot which was allotted somewhere in the year 1993 is in proximity of the acquired land. The purchaser who purchased the said plot has been examined and has confirmed that the allotment was made in 1993 though the final Sale Deed was executed in the year 2001. Considering his evidence on record, I find that the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation on the basis of the comparability of the Sale Instance at Exhibit 13. The Reference Court after coming to the conclusion that the Sale Instance at Exhibit 13 is comparable to the land acquired has effected deduction on account of dissimilarities and development charges. After such deductions, the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per square metre. 10. Shri Kakodkar is not justified to contend that the respondents have failed to discharge the burden to the effect that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. On the 9 contrary, on the basis of the material on record, the respondents have duly discharged such burden. No evidence has been adduced by the appellants by producing any Sale Instance to the contrary. RW1 has chosen not to produce any Sale Instance or any material to substantiate their claim that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was adequate and to establish the price prevailing in the locality of the land acquired. 11. Considering the overall evidence on record and on the basis of the Sale Instance produced by the respondent, I find that the amount fixed by the Reference Court is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 12. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above appeal and, consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-