1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 46/2001. 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer (South Goa), Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, P.O.Navelim, Salcete, Goa, 403 707. 2. Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd; Rawanfond, Near Margao Railway Station, Margao, Goa. … Appellants. V/s 1. Kamalabai Jaiwant Fal Dessai, House No. 274, Deulwadda, Bali, Quepem, Goa. … Respondents. Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE: 23rd September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per D. G. Karnik, J ). 1. By a Notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ( the Act for short) in the Official Gazette dated 2 26.6.1991 the appellant No. 2, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Acquired several lands for construction of new broad gauge line for Konkan Railway at village Balli of Quepem taluka. The land of respondent bearing survey No. 41.1 admeasuring 5000 sq. metres and land bearing survey No. 42/2 admeasuring 1600 sq. metres of village Balli was acquired under the said notification. 2. By an award dated 7.12.1993 the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO for short) awarded compensation to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq. metre. There were about 141 trees in the land bearing survey No. 41/1 for which the SLAO awarded compensation of Rs. 75,677/- and there were 27 trees in survey No. 41/2 for which the SLAO awarded compensation of Rs. 21,871.10. 3. Since there was dispute of ownership of the property between respondent No. 1 and Mr. Ivon T. Moraes, the SLAO referred the matter to the District Judge under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Aggrieved with the amount of compensation awarded by the SLAO, the applicant moved an application under Section 18 of the 3 Act and the matter was referred to the District Court. 5. The reference court came to the conclusion that the market value of the suit land was Rs. 39/- per sq. metre and accordingly directed that additional compensation of Rs. 27/- per sq. metre shall be paid to the appellant in respect of the acquired land. 6. Before the reference court, the appellant examined two witnesses. The respondent examined her power of attorney (AW1) and one more witness. Aw1 deposed that the dispute between the respondent – Ivon Moraes, the matter was decided in favour of the applicant and the decree has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. He then stated that the acquired land is a levelled garden land containing coconut trees and cashew trees and was 500 metres away from the Margao-Karwar Highway and 100 metres away from the internal Quepem- Balli road. He further stated that there was katcha road from the main road to approach the property. He further stated that survey holdings No. 41/1 and 41/2 were adjacent to each other and the nearest house with Mangalore tiles was 25 metres away and the nearest RCC construction was 50 metres away from the acquired land. He further stated that the secondary school was 50 metres away 4 whereas the Higher Secondary School was about 1.5 kms. away. The temple was only 140 metres away, the Church was about 2 kms. away, the police station was 2.5 kms. away and bus stop was 1.5 kms. Away. Primary Health Centre, Balli was 400 metres away and bank was about 1.5 kms. Away; the Forest Check Post and so also the post office and market were about 1.5 kms. away. He further stated that there was electric pole and telephone line at a distance of about 10 metres from the acquired land and water pipeline at about 10 kms. from the acquired land and the panchayat office at about 1.5 kms. away. He thus stated that the suit land was ideally situated with all the facilities around and in the vicinity. 7. The respondent examined Narendra Faldessai as A.w.2. He stated on oath that in the year 1991 he and his wife sold a plot of land admeasuring 300 sq. metres to Raghavdas Keni for Rs. 66,500/- at the rate of Rs. 220/- per sq. metre. He has identified his signature on the sale deed and has proved the sale deed. He stated that there were cashew trees in his plot. He further stated that the acquired land of the respondent was 70 metres away from his plot. This sale deed is in respect of plot of land which is just 70 metres away from the acquired plot. This could therefore be said to be a market price 5 prevailing in the year 1990-91. It is true that this was a small plot and therefore it could have to be used as a building plot by itself. As the land of appellant was a large piece of land and used as building plot and would have been required to be developed and could have been made into plot and developed, same deductions would have to be made. 8. In the course of laying down the plot, 30% of the land would be required to be left for the purpose of road and open space. Therefore, there would be 30% deduction at the initial stage and the rate of 23 if reduced by 30 would come to 220- 66 = 154. Again the rate would be further reduced by 50% for development expenses and that would work out to Rs. 77 per sq. metre. As against this, the reference court has accepted the rate at Rs. 50/- per sq. metre which is less than the market rate calculated as above. 9. Since no cross objection has been filed, no enhancement can be granted to the respondents. The decision of the reference court awarding compensation at the rate of Rs 50/- per sq. metres cannot be interfered with at the instance of the appellant. 6 10. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs. D. G. KARNIK, J MF/-