… 1 … IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.116 OF 2000 1. State of Goa Rep. By Special Land Acquisition Officer (SIP) I. D. Complex, Gogol, Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XXIV, Public Works Department, Borda, Margao, Goa. .. Appellants. Versus 1. (Fernando Abranches), Since Deceased by LR's Near the Holy Cross Church, Verna, Salcete-Goa. 1(a) Smt. Celeina Abranches, wife, aged 50 years, 1(b) Shri Reynold Abranches, son, aged 23 years; 1(c) Miss Marushka Abranches, daughter, aged 22 years; 1(d) Shri Sheldon Abranches, Son, aged 18 years. All R/o Verna, Near Holy Cross Church, Verna, Salcete – Goa. .. Respondents. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Mario B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate for the respondents. … 2 … CORAM :- U. D. SALVI,J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 12 th January, 2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 20 th January, 2010 JUDGMENT : This is an appeal preferred by the State of Goa through its S.L.A.O. and its Public Works Department against the Judgment and Award dated 13th March, 2000 awarding compensation for the acquisition of the land @ Rs.40/- per square metre in the Land Acquisition Case No.230/1992 by the Second Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao. 2. Briefly the relevant particulars are as under : (a) Date of Section 4 Notification - 4.11.1988 (b) Publication of Section 4 Notification in the Official Gazette - 1.12.1988 (c) Land acquired of the respondent - 480 Sq. Mts. under Survey No.198/5 of Village Verna (d) Offer made by the Land - Rs.22/-per Acquisition Officer Sq.Mt. (e) Amount enhanced by the - Rs.40/- per Reference Court sq.mt. … 3 … 3. Though several grounds for preferring the present appeal have been quoted in the appeal memo, particularly lack of comparability in the sale instances and the acquired land, Learned Govt. Advocate Shirodkar for the State preferred to question the wisdom of the Trial Court in applying the ratio from the judgment reported in 1998 GLT (1) 324 – State of Goa Versus Orga and Gomes D'Costa to the case in question. He pointed out that the sale deed land was a developed plot of land situate 300 meters away from the acquired land and as such there ought to have been deduction in the rate at which the said plot was sold to the extent of 50 % and not 40 % as done by the Reference Court for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the acquired land. 4. In Orga Gomes D'Costa's case (supra) this Bench while applying the measure of market rate of developed plot to the acquired land held that 40 % deduction in the market rate was necessary. Relying on the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2005 AIR SCW 2107. which are as follows : … 4 … “21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50 % of the total price.” Govt. Advocate Shirodkar for the State tried to persuade this Court to deduct 50 % from the market value of the sale deed land instead of 40 % as considered to be reasonable by the learned Reference Court. However, he was at a loss to expound the logic behind this shift from 40 % to 50 % on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Reference Court. 5. Learned Advocate D'Costa for the respondents ruefully submitted that there was enough evidence to support the cross-objections for enhancement of the claim in the present case. He pointed out from the evidence that there were two sale instances as follows, of which the sale instance of 1987 was most relevant : Sr. No. Date of sale deed Year of land Rate 1) 21.5.1987 528 sq.mts. Rs.94 per sq. mt. 2) 12/02/85 480 sq.mts. Rs.51.28per sq.mt. … 5 … He further submitted that the land acquired was 500 sq.mts. comparable with the land sold in 1987 and, therefore, judgment in Orga D'Costa's case, which dealt with the acquisition of large piece of land could not have been made applicable to the facts in the case for the purpose of making deduction in the market rate. He further submitted that escalation of the market value with the passage of time ought to have been computed with reference to the actual market rate of Rs.51.28 per sq.mt. and not on the market value computed after deduction. He further pointed out from the evidence that possession of the acquired land was already taken on 13.08.1987 sequel to the earlier notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act prior to the notification on 4.11.1988 in the present case. Adding to his submissions, he questioned the propriety of escalation in market price @ Rs.10 % and not at 15 % as held to be reasonable by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. Though the submissions made on behalf of the respondents regarding the worth of their cross-objections may sound meritorious, the same cannot be looked into as in fact no cross-objections to the impugned judgment and award have been taken in the present appeal. At the same time, … 6 … there can be no blind application of the ratio in Viluben Jhalejar's case to the facts and circumstances in the present case. The discretion utilised by the Reference Court cannot be faulted. The appeal must, therefore, fail. 7. The appeal is dismissed. Considering the submissions that 50 % of the amount awarded has been deposited in the Reference Court, there shall be no order as to costs. U. D. Salvi, J. SMA