1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2002 1) Special Land Acquisition Officer (N), Irrigation Department (GTIDC), Karraswada, Mapusa, Goa. 2) Executive Engineer, Works Division VI, Irrigation Department, Now under GTIDC, W.D. VIII, T.I.P. Complex, near Tivim Industrial Estate, Colvale Road, Bardez, Goa. …... Appellants. V/s. 1) Mr. Augustin Luis Jose Fernandes (since deceased) through LRs. 1a) Mrs. Maria Jasmita D'Souza (wife); 1b) Mrs. Dorothy Catherine Fernandes (daughter); 1c) Mrs. Maria Concecao Fernandes (daughter); 1d) Mr. Xavier Coelho (son-in-law); 1e) Mr. Thomas Fernandes (son); 1f) Mrs. Agnes Fernandes (daughter-in-law); 2) Mrs. Maria Jasmitta Obaldina D'Souza, Maina-Sodiem, Siolim, Bardez, Goa. …... Respondents. Mr. Samir Bandodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the respondents. 2 CORAM :- A.P. LAVANDE, J. Date :- 23rd September, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Bandodkar, for the appellants and Mr. Godinho for the respondents. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the Judgment and Award dated 11th December, 2001, by which the reference sought by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) has been partly allowed. 3. By Notification dated 21st November, 1991, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for public purpose. An area admeasuring 1460 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 258/6 and an area admeasuring 275 sq. metres bearing Survey No.255/11 situated at Village Maina, Sodiem-Siolim belonging to the respondents was part of the acquired lands. The respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. metre. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award dated 15th July, 1993 and 3 fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. metre, in respect of survey No.258/6 which was a cashew land and an amount of Rs.12/- per sq. metre in respect of survey No.255/11 which was a bharad land. 4. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.250/- per sq. metre in LAC No. 108/1995. The respondents/claimants examined three witnesses, namely AW.1 Catarine Fernandes, Anil Mandrekar AW.2 and Mahadeo Waman Naik Tuenkar AW.3, the valuer. The respondent placed reliance upon sale deed dated 20.2.1991 by which an area of 463 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 237/11 was sold at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq. metre. The appellants examined Shri T. A. Achutan in support of their case. 5. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 20.2.1991, Exhibit AW.1/D and deducted 40% towards development costs; 30% for the largeness of the acquired land and 20% on the ground that the acquired land was undulated and sloppy and further away from the city limits. The Reference Court, thus, arrived at a figure of Rs.44.80 per sq. metre as compensation, after considering 4 all deductions. 6. Mr. Bandodkar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 20.2.1991 Exhibit AW.1/D which was in respect of a plane plot of land and the acquired land was sloppy land with cashew trees in it. He further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have made further deduction of 10% on account of the fact that the sale deed plot was close to Siolim-Maina road and there was a house in it. He further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have made further deduction of 10% on the ground of advantage of having a road abutting the sale deed plot. 7. Per contra, Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and award. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. In view of the rival submissions, the following point arises 5 for determination in this appeal : Whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs.44.80 per sq. metre ? If not, what compensation the respondents are entitled to ? 10. The Reference Court considered the evidence led by the parties which discloses that the acquired land was away from the city limits and had no amenities closeby. As stated above, the Reference Court, after placing reliance upon the sale deed dated 20.2.1991, and after making deductions as referred to above, arrived at a figure of Rs.44.80 per sq. metre. In my considered opinion, having regard to evidence led by the parties, the deductions made by the Reference Court on account of development costs, on account of largeness of the acquired land, on account of nature and the location of the acquired land, vis-a-vis the sale deed plot, cannot be faulted. However, I find merit in the submission of Mr. Bandodkar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that a further deduction of 10% on the ground that Siolim- Maina road was close to the sale deed plot, and further deduction of 10% on the ground that the sale deed plot had the advantage of a road on the southern side, ought to have been made. Thus, the market rate of the acquired land works out to Rs.36.30 per sq. metre, which is 6 rounded off to Rs.36/-. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The market rate of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.36/- per sq. metre. Needless to mention that the respondents are also entitled to all other statutory benefits under the Act. 12. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. A.P. LAVANDE, J. ssm.