-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2004 1. Dy. Collector (L.A.), Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, WD-VI (R-S), P.W.D., Fatorda, Goa. ….. Appellants V e r s u s Martinho Wilson das Chagas e Silva, r/o. H. No. 1334/A, Mazilwado, Benaulim, Salcete, Goa. …... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM: F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 26 th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 29.09.2003, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case no. 69/2001. 2. By a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), a portion of the property of the Respondent was sought to be acquired by the Appellants by Notification bearing no. 22/180/90-RD dated 25.01.1991, published in Official Gazette dated 28th February, 1991. The said land was intended to be acquired for the purpose of construction and black topping of Tambdimati Majilwado main Varca Margao road no.4 and Pequeno Pulwado road in Village Panchayat Benaulim of Salcete Taluka. The Land Acquisition Officer by an Award dated -2- 20.11.1995, under Section 11 of the said Act, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said Award, the Respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed that the market value for the land acquired was Rs.250/- per square metre. By Judgment and Award dated 29th September, 2003, the learned Addl. District Judge partly allowed the reference filed by the Respondent and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal. 4. The learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants has submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected itself whilst determining the market value of the land acquired. She further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed a just and proper compensation for the land acquired and there was no evidence adduced by the Respondent to substantiate his claim for enhancement of compensation. She further submitted that the Sale Deed relied upon by the Respondent which is at exhibit 13 is not comparable with the land acquired. She further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced by the Respondent to substantiate his claim that the land acquired was comparable to the said sale instance. She further submitted that the Award produced by the Respondent which is at exhibit 16 dated 08.06.1998, passed in Land Acquisition Case no, -3- 133/1993, is not comparable with the land acquired. She further submitted that the land acquired which is subject matter of the said Award is at a distance of more than 700 metres from the land acquired. She further submitted that the Appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned Judgment passed by the Reference Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. The Respondent though served has failed to remain present nor represented by any Counsel. 6. Having hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal : POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of land as on the date of Section 4 Notification at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. 7. The Respondent examined himself as Aw.1 and in his affidavit has stated that the land acquired is in respect of the property surveyed under no.1/10 of Benaulim Village. He has further stated that the said land is at a distance of 900 metres from the High Tide Line. He further stated on affidavit that within the radius of about 850 metres from the acquired land, there is a school, a local Panchayat Office, Central Government Fisheries Office, Five Star Hotels, etc. He further stated that Benaulim Beach is at a distance of 1.5 kilometres from the acquired land by road and Vaddi Beach is at a distance of -4- about one kilometre from the acquired land. He further stated that the said land was accessible by the existing Village road of Benaulim Village which was extending up to Margao and beyond. He further stated that the facilities such as electricity, tap water, public transport and telephone, etc., were available at the time of Section 4 Notification. In support of his claim for enhancement, he has relied upon two Sale Deeds one dated 30.03.1992. where the sale price was fixed at Rs.428/- per square metre and the other Sale Deed dated 20.12.1990, wherein the sale price was fixed at Rs.175/- per square metre. He has further stated that the land of the Sale Deed plots are similar to the land acquired and that the land in the Sale Deed plot of the year 1992 is at a distance of one kilometre from the acquired land while the land which was subject matter of the Sale Deed of the year 1990, is at a distance of 700 metres from the acquired land. He has also produced the Judgment dated 08.06.1998 passed in Land Acquisition Case no, 133/1993. He has stated that the said land is at a distance of 850 metres from the acquired land and the nature of both the lands is similar. In his cross examination, he has admitted that the Sale Deed plot of the year 1990, which is at exhibit 13 is closer to the Panchayat road as against the land acquired. The suggestion put to the said witness Aw.1 that the land subject matter of the said Award was not at a distance of 850 metres, was denied. The suggestion that the land of the Sale Deed plot at exhibit 13 was not similar to the land acquired, was also denied. On perusal of the Sale Deed at exhibit 13, I find that the Respondent himself was a Vendor in the said Sale Deed. The recital of said Sale Deed discloses that the Respondent has divided the said property into -5- four plots designated under nos. 1 to 4 and the sub-division was duly approved by the competent authorities. The Sale Deed further discloses that the no objection certificate for registering the said Sale Deed in respect of plot no. 3 has been obtained from the South Planning and Development Authority by its letter dated 08.11.1990. The price disclosed therein is Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid by Demand Draft whereby plot no. 3 was sold admeasuring an area of 571 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 401/9 of Benaulim Village. The perusal of the Sale Deed discloses that the price works out to about Rs.175/- per square metre. The Sale Deed plot is admittedly a developed plot and the land acquired is an undeveloped land. 8. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2010 (1) S.C.C. 444 in the case of Subh Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and anr. has held that whilst comparing a developed plot with undeveloped land, the deduction can extend from 20% to 75% depending upon the nature and the area of the land acquired. The Reference Court after considering the dissimilarities of the land, has fixed the compensation after deductions at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. The Reference Court has also considered that the sale instance at exhibit 13 has a public road as one of its boundaries besides an access road. The learned Addl. Government Advocate was unable to point out any illegality in such exercise. 9. The Reference Court has also considered the Award passed in Land Acquisition Case no. 133/1993, which is located at a distance of 850 -6- square metres from the acquired land wherein the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre for the land acquired. The nature and the similarities of land with the land acquired in the present case are similar and, as such, the Reference Court considering that the Notification in the said case was issued in the year 1990, has determined the market value of land at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. I find that there is no ground for interfering with the determination of the market value of the land acquired. The Reference Court has determined the market value after considering the well settled principles of determining the compensation of the land acquired under the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no merit in the contention of learned Addl. Government Advocate to the effect that the Reference Court has not considered the material on record whilst determining the market value of land. There was sufficient material on record produced by the Respondents to the effect that the value of the land acquired was inadequate. The burden shifted on the Appellants to demonstrate that the value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper market value. The Appellants have not led any evidence to substantiate on that count. 10. There is no reason for interference in the impugned Judgment and Award. As such, the above Appeal stands dismissed with costs. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*