1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, I. D. Ghogol, Margao. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division XII, P. W.D., Sanguem Goa. …. Appellants V e r s u s Shri Damodar A. Verenkar r/o Quepem Goa. … Respondent Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J DATE : 6 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 . ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 12.06.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case 2 No. 102/1991. 3. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” ) dated 28.07.1987 published in the Official Gazette dated 06.03.1987, land was acquired at Shirvoi Village in Quepem Taluka for laying a pipeline for 160 MLD Salaulim water supply project for Kushawati Bridge in Quepem Taluka. Amongst the land which were acquired, two portions of the property belonging to the respondent in survey No. 125/12(part) admeasuring 3600 square metres and 125/13 (part) admeasuring 200 square metre were acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer whilst passing the award under Section 11 of the said Act, offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.6/- per square metre for an area of 3600 square metres and a sum of Rs.3/- per square metre for the remaining portion of the land. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed Rs.50/- per square metre for the acquired land. By the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. 3 Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court was not justified to effect deduction of 40% on account of dissimilarity as according to him, considering the locality of the land and the nature of the land acquired, higher deduction ought to have been made for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the evidence discloses that the land acquired was hilly area besides the other dissimilarity as compared to the award which is at Exhibit AW1/D and as such the Reference Court ought to have effected further deductions on account of such dissimilarity. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record and pointed out that the sale instances produced by the respondent in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation has been rejected by the Reference Court but relied only upon the said award for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has misappreciated the evidence on record and as such 4 has come to an erroneous conclusion that the respondent was entitled for the enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel as such submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside. 5. The respondent though served failed to remain present at the time of hearing. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the records, the following point arises for my determination in the present case :- POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre for the land acquired ? 7. On perusal of evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment, I find that the respondent in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation had produced besides the award at Exhibit AW1/D, another four sale instances. One sale deed was dated 01.09.1986 which is at Exhibit AW1/A, another sale deed dated 21.08.1986 which is 5 at Exhibit AW1/B, and sale deed dated 22.04.1987 which is at Exhibit AW1/C and the price as mentioned in the said sale deeds are ranging from Rs.58/- to Rs.59/- per square metre situated in the same Village. But however the Reference Court whilst appreciating the evidence on record thought it appropriate to rely the award at Exhibit AW1/D, as the basis for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land acquired. While determining the market value of the land acquired, the Reference Court has noted that there were dissimilarities between the land acquired in the present case and the land was the subject matter of the said award. All the dissimilarities have been considered by the Reference Court including the fact that the land acquired was a hilly land and effected 40% deduction for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. The price fixed in Exhibit AW1/D by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the said Act for the land acquired therein was land which was undeveloped. But however the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned judgment had deducted 40% and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. As the amount of compensation fixed at Exhibit AW1/D was of an undeveloped land, there was no question of deducting any development 6 charges for fixing the market value of the land acquired which was also undeveloped. Considering the said aspect, I find that the amount fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre cannot be said to be exorbitant or unfair. The amount fixed is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The learned Additional Government Advocate is not justified to contend that the Reference Court has not effected deduction on account of dissimilarities found with regard to the land acquired. All the dissimilarities as noted by the Reference Court have been duly considered by the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned judgment. Considering the material on record, the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre at the relevant time. As such, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 8. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and consequently the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J at*