:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 227 OF 2007 1. Dy. Collector and SDO Land Acquisition Officer Mapusa Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. XIII, P.W.D., Mapusa Goa. … Appellants V e r s u s Shri Venkatesh P. N. Mirsangkar, resident of H.No.614, Valkeshwar Wado, Betim, Bardez Goa. … Respondent Mr. S. Vahidulla, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. A.R. Kantak with Ms. R. Kantak, Advocates for the Respondent. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 228 OF 2007 1. Dy. Collector and SDO Land Acquisition Officer Mapusa Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. XIII, P.W.D., Mapusa Goa. … Appellants V e r s u s :2: Sai Service Station Ltd., through their General Manager, Shri Ajit Winayak Bapat, R/o36/1 Alto Porvorim, Bardez Goa. … Respondent Mr. S. Vahidulla, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. A.R. Kantak with Ms. R. Kantak, Advocates for the Respondent. CORAM:- A.S. OKA & F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated:- 14 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A. S. OKA,J ) We have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. These two Appeals can be conveniently disposed of as the same arise out of the same Notification 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The lands subject matter of First Appeal No. 227 of 2007 are surveyed under survey Nos. 106/2, 105/1 and 90/1 of village Penha-de-Franca admeasuring 4825 square metres. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act :3: was issued on 14th April, 1998. By an award dated 25th September, 2001, the Land Acquisition Officer offered the market value at the rate of Rs.150/- per square metre. In the reference under Section 18 of the said Act, the market value at the rate of Rs.1060/- per square metre was claimed by the Respondent. By the impugned judgment and award, the market value has been enhanced to Rs.407/- per square metre and all statutory benefits have been granted to the Respondent/Claimant. Same is the rate fixed in award subject matter of challenge in First Appeal No. 228/2007. 2. The learned Additional Government Advocate has taken us through the notes of evidence and documents on record. He pointed out that there is no basis for fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.407/- per square metre on the basis of the sale deed at Exhibit 15 dated 28th February, 1991 which reflects the rate of Rs.238.83 per square metre. He submitted that the award under Section 11 of the said Act at Exhibit 14 relied upon by the Claimant reflects the market value as of 21st September, 1988. He submitted that both the documents cannot be relied upon for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. :4: 3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. In First Appeal No. 227/2007, the Claimant stepped into the witness box. He relied upon the sale deed dated 28th February, 1991 in respect of his own land surveyed under survey No.36/2 of the same village admeasuring 4187 square metres. This is a sale deed which reflects the market value of Rs.238.83 per square metre as of 28th February, 1991. The Claimant also relied upon an award under Section 11 at Exhibit 14 where the relevant date of the notification under Section 4(1) was 1st November, 1988. The acquired land subject matter of the said award is land surveyed under survey No.36/1 from the same village. The Claimant stated in his deposition that the land subject matter of the said award was located at a distance of about 60 metres away from the acquired land. 4. The Claimant in the reference subject matter of First Appeal No. 227/2007 examined one Mr. Satish Nadkarni, Chartered Engineer and approved valuer who also relied upon the same two documents. The expert witness stated that the land subject matter of award at Exhibit 14 was completely similar to the acquired land and was at a distance of about 60 metres away from the acquired :5: land. It must be also noted here that it is brought on record by both the witnesses that the acquired land is located at a distance of about 1.125 Km from Panaji town and the acquired land was having frontage to the national highway close to the proposed Assembly complex and proposed High Court complex. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid two documents, and especially the award at Exhibit 14, the Reference Court found that there is a steady rise in the prices of the lands. The award at Exhibit 14 reflects that the market value of the similar land as on 1st November, 1988 was Rs.200/- per square metre. The sale deed at Exhibit 15 under which the Claimant himself sold a comparable land admeasuring 4187 square metres situated in the same village indicates that the market value of the similar land was Rs.238.83 per square metre as on 28th February, 1991. 6. An attempt was made to contend that the construction activity on the acquired land was not possible as the same was in road widening area. However, the remaining portion of the same land has not been acquired and, therefore, FAR of the acquired land could have been utilized for construction of a building on the :6: remaining land. Considering the rates reflected as on 1st November, 1988 and 28th February, 1991 in respect of comparable lands, for arriving at the market value as on 14th April, 1998, the escalation at the rate of 10% per annum on the rate of Rs.239/- per square metre as on 28th February, 1991 has been applied by the Reference Court. Considering the fact that the acquired land is situated very close to the town of Panaji, the escalation at the rate of 10% per annum is reasonable. Therefore, it is difficult to find fault with the market value of Rs.407/- per square metre arrived at on the basis of market value reflected from the sale deed at Exhibit 15. 7. As far as award subject matter of First Appeal No. 228/2007 is concerned, it relates to the acquisition of area of 800 square metres from survey No.36/1 of the same village which was the subject matter of the Award at Exhibit 14. Therefore, the said market value of Rs.407/- per square metre has been fixed by the Reference Court. We find no fault with the said conclusions. 8. There is no merit in the Appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. :7: 9. The amount deposited by the Appellant in this Court along with interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the Respondent/original Claimant. A.S. OKA, J F.M. REIS, J at*