1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2004 1. Deputy Collector (L.A.) Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D.VI (R-S)P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao, Goa. ..... Appellants V e r s u s Shri Ramakant R. Poinguinkar, r/o. Shri Damodar Co-op Housing Society, Aquem, Alto, Margao. ...... Respondents Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE: 14 th November, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT By this appeal, the appellants take exception of Judgment and Award dated 01.10.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case no. 68/2001, partly allowing the reference. 2. Vide notification dated 25.01.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Official Gazette on 28.02.1991, the Government of Goa acquired lands belonging to several 2 persons for public purpose namely construction and black topping of Tambdimati Majilwado main Varca-Margao road no. 4 and Pequeno Pulwado road in Village Panchayat of Benaulim of Salcete Taluka. By Award declared on 30.11.1995, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.8/- per square metre. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. In Land Acquisition Case no. 68/01, the respondent examined himself as Aw.1 and Vikas Dessai, as Aw.2. No evidence was led on behalf of the Appellants. The respondent also claimed Rs.3,000/- in respect of 12 coconut trees existing in the acquired property. The Reference Court upon appreciation of the evidence led by the respondent, partly allowed the reference and fixed the market rate at Rs.65/- per square metre. 3. In the Reference Court, the respondent placed reliance upon Judgment and Award dated 08.06.98 in Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93, which was in respect of land at a distance of about one kilometre from the acquired land. The respondent stated that the nature of the acquired land was similar to that of the land which was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93. The subject matter of Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93 was land admeasuring 1675 square metres from Survey no. 312/1 and a portion of land admeasuring 210 square metres from survey no. 312/2 of Village Benaulim. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.23/- in respect of land under survey no. 312/1 and Rs.12/- in 3 respect of land under survey no. 312/2. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation of Rs.60/- per square metre. The said Award was not challenged by the appellant and, as such, has become final. The Reference Court held that since the land acquired and the land in Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93 were in the same locality and of similar nature, the Judgment in Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93 could be the basis for fixing the market rate of the acquired land. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the evidence of the respondent that the acquired land was similar to the land in Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93. The Reference Court refused to place reliance upon the evidence of the expert for fixing the market value of the land and also refused to grant any compensation in respect of coconut trees for want of evidence. 5. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the Reference Court erred in relying upon the Award in Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93 and holding that the land in the said case was similar to the acquired land in the absence of any cogent evidence having been led by the respondent. According to learned Government Advocate, the burden of proving that the acquired land was similar to the land in Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93, was on the respondent and he having not discharged the said burden, the Reference Court could not have enhanced the compensation. 6. Per Contra, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for 4 the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that having regard to the findings given by the Reference Court and also having regard to the location of the acquired land the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference by this Court. 7. In view of the rival submissions, the following point arises for consideration in the present appeal : Whether the compensation granted at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metres in respect of the acquired land is excessive ? 8. As stated above, the Reference Court has relied upon the Award dated 08.06.98 passed in Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93, which was in respect of land at a distance of about one kilometre from the acquired land. Admittedly, the said Award was not challenged by the appellants. The Reference Court has accepted the evidence led by respondent that the acquired land was similar in all respects to the land in Land Acquisition Case no. 133/93. 9. Except for the suggestion to the contrary in the cross examination of the respondent, there is absolutely no other evidence brought on record to establish that the acquired land was not similar to the land in earlier award. Moreover, the acquired land is at a distance of about 3 kilometres from Margao market and at a distance of about 2 kilometres from Benaulim beach and within a radius of half kilometre, amenities like stalls, chapel, general stores, etc., were available. The evidence on record also 5 establishes that the acquired land was adjoining the public road leading from Varca to Margao and the same was in settlement zone which fact was not challenged. The evidence of expert also indicates that the acquired land could have been utilized for construction purpose and the same was situated in residential locality. Having regard to all these factors which are relevant for determining the market rate of acquired land, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land cannot be termed as excessive warranting interference by this Court. In my considered opinion, the Reference Court has correctly appreciated the evidence led by the respondent and arrived at the market rate of the acquired land on the date of Section 4 Notification. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. 10. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. The amount of compensation deposited by the appellants along with the accrued interest be paid to the respondent after a period of eight weeks. A. P. LAVANDE, J. arp/*