-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2004 1. Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa, Sub-Division, Quepem, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division, XXXI (PHE) PWD., Margao, Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s President, Dr. Felipe Nerry de Piedade Correia, Chapel of Mount, Margao. …... Respondent Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 20 th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 22.09.2003, whereby the reference preferred by the Respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act'), was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre besides compensation on account of severance in respect of an area of 105 square metres at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. 2. Pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated -2- 09.12.1986, published in the Official Gazette dated 11.05.1987, land was acquired admeasuring an area of 157 square metres out of the property surveyed under no. 150/28 for underground drainage scheme to Margao Town North Zone, part III. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, compensation was fixed for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the said Act , claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per square metre for the land acquired as well as compensation towards severance. 3. By Judgment and Award dated 22.09.2003, the Reference Court awarded compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre besides compensation on account of severance for an area of 105 square metres at the same rate apart from statutory benefits in accordance with law. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellants preferred the present Appeal. 5. Shri Kakodkar, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants has essentially assailed the impugned Judgment on the ground that the Reference Court was not justified to fix the compensation on account of the severance at the same rate as the one awarded by the Reference Court in respect of the land acquired. The learned Counsel further pointed out that though the land which has been severed admeasures an area of 105 square metres, nevertheless, the title of the said land continues with the Respondent and it is always open to the Respondent to use and enjoy the said piece of land in the manner they so desire in -3- accordance with law. The learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed out that the Reference Court was not justified to fix the compensation at the same rate towards severance charges as the evidence does not disclose that the said area of 105 square metres was totally useless and could not be used for any purpose by the Respondent. With regard to the claim of compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre, the learned Addl. Government Advocate pointed out that the said amount has been fixed on the basis of a previous Award in respect of the same Notification which has become final. 6. On the other hand, Shri C. A. Ferreira, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, has supported the impugned Judgment. The learned Counsel pointed out that considering the compensation for the land acquired was fixed on the basis of a previous Award in respect of the same Notification which has become final, there is no question of fixing any different amount for the land acquired in the present case. 7. With regard to the contention of Shri Kakodkar, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Appellant, Shri Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent fairly concedes that such compensation could have been reduced at 50 percent of the market value fixed for the land acquired as there was no evidence on record to disclose that the said piece of land was totally useless and could not be used for any purpose. The learned Counsel further pointed out that subject to the said deduction, there is no case made out for any interference in the impugned Judgment. -4- 8. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following points for determination arise in the present Appeal : 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre ? 2. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation on account of severance at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre for an area of 105 square metres ? 9. Dealing with the first point for determination and taking note of the contention of the learned Counsel, I find that the Reference Court has fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre on the basis of an Award passed in Land Acquisition Case 100/1992 in respect of the land which was located at a distance of 400 metres from the acquired land which is at exhibit 19. Considering that the location of the land is in the proximity of the land acquired in the said Award, I find that the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation on the basis of the said Award. There is no dispute raised by the Appellants that the said Award has become final and the amount has been duly disbursed to the concerned party in the said proceedings. Considering that there is no grievance raised by the Appellants about the nature of the land acquired and the land subject matter of the said acquisition, I find that the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. Dealing with the second point for determination, the Reference Court -5- whilst fixing the compensation on account of severance, has awarded a sum of Rs.200/- per square for an area of 105 square metres. There is no dispute that the title of the said portion of the land continues with the Respondent and that the Respondent are free to enjoy the said portion of land. No doubt, considering the smallness of the said area, the Respondent would suffer some prejudice on such enjoyment. As such, the Reference Court was not justified to fix the same amount of compensation for the land which has been severed. Taking note of the fact that there is no dispute that there is no evidence on record to establish that the said piece of land has become totally useless for the Respondent, the amount of compensation on account of such severance is to be reduced to 50 percent taking note of the submission of the learned Counsel. The Reference Court was not justified to fix the same amount of compensation on account of severance compensation and the same is fixed at 50 percent of the rate fixed for the land acquired. As such, the compensation on account of severance is fixed at Rs.100/- per square metre for an area of 105 square metres. The second point for determination is answered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER 1. The Appeal is partly allowed. 2. The impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court is modified to the extent that the compensation on account of severance is fixed at the rate of Rs.100/- per square metre for an area of 105 square metres. Remaining part of the -6- Award stands confirmed. 3. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no Orders as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*