1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.33 OF 2003 1. State of Goa, through the Deputy Collector and L.A.O South Goa, Sub-Division, Quepem, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (Road-South) P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao,Goa .... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Dr. Shankar D. Nadkarni, resident of Dando, Sanguem, Goa. ..... Respondent Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. V.A. Lawande, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATE: 30TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. V.A. Lawande, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (“The Act” for short) , which was published on Official Gazette on 9.2.1989 the State Government acquired lands 2 of several persons for public purpose. An area admeasuring 894 sq.metres bearing survey nos.154/1,154/13,154/3 and 30/0 of Sanguem village belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired land. The Respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.metre. The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 23.6.1992 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.mtre. Aggrieved by the award, the Respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Said Act and claimed Rs.50/- per sq.metre. 3. In Land Acquisition Case No.290/93, the Respondent examined himself and produced copy of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 17.2.1981 Exhibit AW.1/A, by which an area of 22 sq.metres bearing survey no.30/0 was acquired at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.metre. In the said case, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 28.6.1979. The Respondent also relied upon two sale deeds i.e. sale deed dated 14.7.1988 (Exhibit Aw1/B) and sale deed dated 1.5.1987 exhibit (AW.1/C), by which two plots were sold at a distance of about one and half km. from the acquired land. The Appellant herein did not lead any evidence. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the 3 sale deed dated 14.7.1988 on the ground that it was proximate in point of time and after deducting 40 % from the said price of Rs. 50/- arrived at compensation of Rs.31/- per sq.metre. Aggrieved by the award, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. Mr. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for the Appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the sale deed Exhibit Aw.1/B in the absence of any evidence as to comparability of sale deed land with the acquired land. He further submitted that neither the sale deed Exhibit Aw1/C nor the award (Aw.1/A) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer would be relevant for deciding the market rate of the acquired land. Mr. Vahidulla further submitted that the respondent has not led any evidence to justify enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. Lawande learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the award exhibit Aw.1/A was in respect of property bearing survey no.30/0 (part) and some portion of the said survey number along with other properties were acquired vide Section 4 notification issued in the present case and, 4 therefore, considering the value of the said property bearing survey no.30/0 in the year 1979 at Rs.25/- per sq.metre the respondent is actually entitled to higher compensation. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned award does not warrant any interference. He further submitted that the appellants have not lead any evidence to prove the market value of the acquired lands, the burden of which lay on the appellants. In support of his submission, Mr. Vahidulla placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530. 6. I have perused the record and the judgment relied upon. 7. In view of the findings arrived at by the Reference Court, the following point arises for determination in the appeal. a) Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.31/-per sq.metre? If not, what compensation the respondent is entitled to? 8. As stated above, the respondent placed reliance upon 5 the award dated 17.2.1981 in which an area of 22 sq.metres bearing survey no.30/0 was acquired at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.metre. In the said case Section 4 notification was published on 25.6.1979. 9. The Reference Court placed reliance upon sale deed dated 14.7.1988 Exhibit Aw1/B by which a plot of land at a distance of about half a kilo metre from the acquired land was sold at the rate of Rs.51/- per sq.metre. The Reference Court after deducting 40 % arrived at the compensation at the rate of Rs.31/- per sq.mtre. 10. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that although the market rate of the acquired land can be fixed on the basis of comparable rates for sale instances, in case where the State Government acquires a part of the land and compensation is offered to the persons interested by passing an award under Section 11A of the Act, the rate mentioned in the said award would afford the basis for fixing the market rate of remaining portion of the land, if acquired later. In the present case admittedly the appellants acquired an area of 22 sq.mtres bearing survey no.30/0 in respect of which by award dated 17/2/1991 the 6 compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.metre was awarded. This being the position in my considered opinion, the said award ought to have been relied upon by the Reference Court in preference to the sale deed in respect of a plot of land which was some distance away from the acquired land. 11. If the rate mentioned in the award Exhibit Aw1/A which was the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself is taken as the base, the compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.31/- per sq.metre in respect of which Section 4 notification was published on 19.2.1989, that is almost after a period of 10 years cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the compensation fixed by the Reference Court cannot be termed as excessive warranting interference by this Court in the appeal preferred by the appellants. 12. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no orders as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-