- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2004 1 Special Land Acquisition Officer, (SIP) I.D. Complex, Gogal Margao, Goa. 2 The Executive Engineer, Works Div. VI, PWD, Fatorda, Margao. ........ Appellants. Versus Issac Pacheco, H. No.71, Seraulim, Salcete-Goa. ........ Respondent. Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. None present for the Respondent. Coram:-F. M. REIS, J. Date:-27th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 18th December, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in the Land Acquisition case no. 31/1993 whereby the reference filed by the respondent under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act') was allowed. - 2 - 2. The Government issued notification under section 4 of the said Act dated 18th January, 1990 published in Official Gazette dated 31st January, 1990 whereby the land was acquired for construction of the road from Mungaul-Calata via Seraulim. Vide Award passed on 13th May, 1992 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre. 3. Being dissatisfied with the said Award, the Respondent filed reference under section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of the compensation and claimed a compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre. The land acquired belonging to the respondent admeasures an area of 400square metres out of property surveyed under no. 14/2 of Village Seraulim. 4. By Judgment and Award dated 18th December, 2002, the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa Margao, determined the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the - 3 - Appellants have preferred the present appeal. The learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. S. Linhares appearing for the Appellants has submitted that the Reference Court has totally misconstrued the evidence and come to the erroneous findings that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of section 4 notification was Rs.60/- per square metre. Learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired was at a distance of 4 kilometres from Margao City and the sale deeds produced by the respondent are not comparable with the land acquired. She further submitted that the sale deeds produced by the respondent were of sub divided plots and cannot be compared with the land acquired. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon the sale deed which is at Exh. AW1/A wherein the subject matter of the land acquired was a developed plot. The learned Counsel further took me through the evidence of the expert and submitted that said expert cannot be believed as he has prepared a antedated expert report. Learned Counsel also took me through the evidence of AW3 and pointed out that nothing has been disclosed by the said witness about the comparability of the land acquired and sale deed at Exh. AW1/A. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that the witness examined by the appellants has brought evidence on record to substantiate that respondent is not entitled for - 4 - any enhancement in the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Counsel further submitted that even assuming the sale deed at Exh. AW1/A is to be accepted, substantial development charges of land are to be deducted to arrive at the market value of the acquired land as on the date of section 4 notification. Respondent though served failed to remain present nor any Counsel appeared on his behalf. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arise in the present appeal:- POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/- per square meter? 7. AW1 Issac Pacheco, was examined and he has stated that the acquired land is about 4 kilometres away from Margao City. The Seraulim railway station, Church, School, Panchayat office, post office are within the radius of 25metres from the acquired land. He has further stated that the land was acquired for construction of road. He has also stated that by a sale deed dated 11th May, 1989 which is at - 5 - Exh. AW1/A a property was sold at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square metre which is about 125 metres away from the acquired land and the nature of the said land and the acquired land is the same. He has also produced another sale instance dated 25th September, 1989 which is at Exh. AW1/B whereby land was sold at the rate of Rs. 210/- per square metre which is at a distance of about 200 metres from the acquired land. 8. In the cross examination he has admitted that both the sale deeds are of developed plots. He has also denied the suggestion that the acquired land is more than 4 to 5 kilometres away from the Seraulim Village. The next witness AW2 Vikas Dessai was examined as an expert witness. He has stated that the said land which is surveyed under no. 14/2 is situated in the settlement zone. He has also stated that the land acquired is levelled land. He has further stated that the sale deed at Exh. AW1/A is at a distance of about 350 metres from the acquired land, about 50 metres from the property surveyed under no. 25/2. In the cross examination he has stated that ODP plan was not ready at the time of inspection and that the acquired land was accessible by kaccha motorable road. The next witness AW3 Bosco Cotta has deposed that he was a party to the sale deed at Exh. - 6 - AW1/A as he had sold the plot of land with the structure to one Robert Alvares. He has further stated that they had to execute a deed of rectification as the value of the said structure was not mentioned in the deed of sale as the value of the structure was received by him separately. The value of the structure existing in the sale deed land was received by him subsequently at the time of execution of deed of rectification. He has further stated that the land acquired is 100 meters from the sale deed land and the nature of the property is similar to the land acquired having similar advantages and disadvantages. In the cross examination he has stated that the sale deed plot was not a developed plot and a traditional access was passing through this property. RW1 has stated that the land acquired is at a distance of 3.5 kilometres from Margao city. In the cross examination he has stated that he was not working in P.W.D. at the time of acquisition. 9. On going through the evidence on record, I find that the Reference Court was justified to hold that the sale deed which is at Exh. AW1/A is comparable with the land acquired. The sale instance is less than 500 metres from the acquired land. There is no challenge to the deposition of AW3 who has confirmed the similarity of the - 7 - sale deed plot with the acquired land and who has stated that nature of the land acquired and that of the land in the sale instance is similar in nature. AW3 has also stated that the land sold pursuant to the said sale deed dated 11th May, 1989 was not developed plot. There is no dispute that the land acquired was also not developed. The land in the sale instance at Exh. AW1/A is also not developed land. Price mentioned in the said sale instance is Rs.75/- per square metre. The respondent has also examined RW1 P. P. Raikar. The evidence of RW1 is not at all material for determining the market value of the land of the respondent. 10. Considering both the acquired land and land of the sale instance, both have similarity in location and nature thereof. Beside that the sale deed is about 6 months prior to the section 4 notification. As such, I find that the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre, after making a deduction of 20% on account of development charges. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants was not justified to submit that the land had no potentiality and that the said sale instance is not comparable with the land acquired. The Reference - 8 - Court was as such justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square metre. Point for determination is answered accordingly. 12. In view of above, there is no merits in the above appeal and as such appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. vn*