1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2000 Shri Caetano Martins, Near Football Ground, Caranzalem, Goa. ... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Deputy Collector (DEV) And Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji. 2. Chief Town Planner, Town & Country Planning Dept., Panaji. ... Respondents Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATED : 18TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. The Appellant is the Applicant in a land acquisition reference filed under 2 Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By the impugned judgment and award dated 18th March, 2000, the reference has been answered against the Appellant. 2. The acquisition relates to the land bearing Chalta Nos. 156/82-A and 156/1 ( part ) situated in City Survey of Panaji of Tiswadi Taluka. The area of the acquired land is 8096 square metres. 3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) was published on 18th February, 1982. An award was made under Section 11 of the said Act on 17th February, 1987. By the said award, the market value at the rate of Rs.150/- per square metre was offered for a part of the land and the market value at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre was offered in respect of another part of the acquired land. A sum of Rs.7,530/- was offered as compensation on account of coconut trees and structures situated in the acquired property. In the reference, the claim was made by the Appellant for the market value at the rate of Rs.500/- per square metre. A claim of Rs.12,000/- was made for the coconut trees and a sum 3 of Rs.1.5 lakhs towards the structures, furnitures and fixtures etc. 4. It must be noted here that the learned District Judge in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment has observed that the co-owners Caetano Francisco do Rosario de Pompaia Martins and two others have filed a Land Acquisition Case No. 181/90. The other co-owners also filed a Land Acquisition Case No. 39/92. The learned Judge observed that although the acquired property in all the three references is common, the co-owners have chosen not to amalgamate the references or to lead common evidence. Therefore, it appears that in all three references under Section 18 of the said Act, separate evidence was recorded by the Court. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken me through the evidence and documents on record. He submitted that the Appellant has discharged the burden of proving that the compensation offered by an award under Section 11 of the said Act was inadequate. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed an error by dismissing the reference. 4 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents has fairly invited attention of this Court to the judgment and award dated 4th July, 2008 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 247/2000. He pointed out that this was an Appeal arising out of the reference filed by the co-owners of the Appellant being Land Acquisition Case No.181 of 1990. In the said case, the compensation has been granted at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The Appellant examined one Mr. Bhobe (AW2) to prove the valuation report dated 15th January,1996 which is at Exhibit 41-A. The said valuation report is as regards the valuation of the structures on the acquired property. The Respondents examined Mr. Gaurish Vagle, Deputy Town Planner as their witness. Reliance was placed by the Appellant on an award under Section 18 of the said Act made in Land Acquisition Case Nos.44/90 and 36/90 ( Exhibit 42 and Exhibit 43 respectively ). In the said two cases, the Reference Court had awarded the market value at the rate of Rs. 210/- per square metre and Rs.240/- per square metre respectively. The Reference Court has considered the evidence of the 5 Appellant as well as the only witness examined by the Respondents on this aspect. The Reference Court found that the land subject matter of award at Exhibit 42 was more advantageously located in as much as it was situated in a corner abutting two roads having a sea view. For the reasons recorded, the Reference Court found that the land subject matter of the award at Exhibit 43 was not comparable. The Appellate Court observed that there is no evidence led by the Appellant as regards the comparability of the acquired land with the land subject matter of awards relied upon by the Appellant. In short, a finding of the Reference Court is that the Appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the compensation offered was inadequate. The learned trial Court found that the evidence of the expert on the market value of structures did not inspire confidence. 8. After having perused the notes of evidence and other material on record, I find it difficult to find fault with the findings of the Reference Court. It is also pointed out earlier in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has made a reference to Land Acquisition Case No. 181/1990 filed in respect of the same land at the 6 instance of Caetano Francisco do Rosario de Pompaia Martins and others who are the co-owners along with the Appellant. The said reference was also dismissed by the Reference Court and First Appeal No. 247/2000 was preferred by the said co-owners. On the basis of the statement made on behalf of the State Government, by judgment dated 4th July, 2008 the Division Bench of this Court fixed the market value of the acquired land in the said case at Rs.200/- per square metre. This being an appeal by the co-owners relating to the same property, the market value of the land will be governed by the rate as fixed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the Appeal will have to be partly allowed. 9. Hence, I pass the following order :- O R D E R (a) The Appellant will be entitled to the market value of the entire acquired land at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. It is made clear that the said market value is inclusive of the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Officer under the Award under Section 11 of the said Act. 7 (b) The Appellant will be entitled to the statutory benefits under Section 23 (1A), Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the said Act. (c) The necessary calculation of the amount payable to the Appellant under the modified award shall be made by the Registrar of this Court. (d) The Appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. A. S. OKA, J at*