1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2003 1 Special Land Acquisition Officer, (S.I.P.), I.D., Complex, Gogal, Margao, Goa. 2 The Executive Engineer, Works Division VI, P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …....... Appellants. Versus Smt. Agnes Benedita Fernandes, H. No. 17, Seraulim, Salcete, Goa. …....... Respondent. Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Respondent absent though served. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 26 th OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the Judgment and Award dated 18.12.2002 passed by the learned 2 Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 40/1993, partly allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( 'the Act' for short). 2. Vide notification issued under section 4 of the Act dated 18.1.1990 which was published in the official gazette dated 31.1.1990, the Government of Goa acquired the lands of several persons for construction of the road from Mungul-Calata via Seraulim. An area admeasuring 485 square metres from the survey nos.16/6 and 16/3 of Seraulim Village belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per square metre. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made award on 13.5.1992 and awarded Rs.30/- per square metre for the acquired land. 3. The respondent sought reference under section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at Rs. 250/- per square metre. 4. In Land Acquisition case no. 40/1993 before the Additional District Judge, Margao the respondent examined 4 3 witnesses namely Agnes Benedicta Fernandes, AW1, Antonio L. Rebelo, AW2, Bosco Cotta, AW3 and Krishna P. Prabhudessai, AW4. Respondent also placed reliance upon three sale deeds dated 25.9.1989( Exh. AW1/A), 21.5.1990 (Exh. AW1/B) and dated 11.5.1989 (Exh. AW1/C). The respondent also placed reliance upon the Valuation report(Exh. AW4/A) given by Mr. Krishna P. Prabhudessai, an expert. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 11.5.1989 by which a plot admeasuring 4000 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre and considering the rise in price fixed the market rate at Rs.85/- per square metre. 5. Mr. Amey Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have placed reliance upon the said sale deed dated 11.5.1989. He further submitted that in any case the Reference Court could not have granted escalation of Rs.10/-, considering that Section 4 notification was published on 31.1.1990 whereas sale deed was executed on 11.5.1989. Placing reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in First Appeal no. 125/2003 in which this 4 Court had maintained the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre granted by the Reference Court to the respondent in the said appeal, Mr. Kakodkar submitted that the Reference Court ought to have deducted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the price mentioned in the sale deed and ought to have reduced the market rate of the acquired land. He further submitted that the nature of the acquired land was not similar to the sale deed plot and therefore the Reference Court ought to have made further deduction on that count. He then urged that the appeal be allowed and the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer be maintained. 6. As stated above, the respondent has chosen not to put in the appearance despite service. 7. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. A. Kakodkar and perused the record. 8. In view of the submissions made by Mr. Kakodkar and the findings given by the Reference Court, the following point 5 arises for determination in the present appeal. Whether the Reference Court was legally justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.85/- per square metre? 9. The evidence of Krishna P. Prabhudessai, AW4, discloses that the acquired land was sandy murram and the sale deed plot upon which reliance is placed, and in my opinion rightly was coconut groove with a structure and some trees therein. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 11.5.1989 by which a plot of 4000 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre. Mr. Kakodkar, is right in contending that the Reference Court could not have granted escalation of Rs. 10/- since the Section 4 notification was published about 8 months after the execution of the sale deed. In First Appeal no. 125/2003, I have considered the deed of rectification to the sale deed dated 11.5.1989 by which structure in the said plot was valued at Rs.20,000/- since the structure was admittedly existing in the sale deed plot value of the structure had to be deducted for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the 6 acquired land. If the value of the structure is considered the market rate of the sale deed plot as on the date of notification would come to Rs.70/- per square metre. Considering the escalation at 10% per annum, the market rate of the sale deed plot as on date of publication of Section 4 notification would works out to Rs.76/- per square metre. 10. The evidence of Krishna P. Prabhudessai, AW4 discloses that the acquired land was sandy murram. Admittedly the sale deed plot was a coconut grow with a structure therein. As such, the nature of the two plots was not similar and on this count further deduction deserves to be made. In my opinion, appropriate deduction would be 15% which works out to Rs.11.40. Hence, the market rate of the acquired land as on date of publication of Section 4 notification works out to Rs. 64.60 per square metre which is rounded off to Rs.65/- per square metre. The respondent is, therefore, entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. Needless to mention, that the respondent is also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. 7 11. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn*