-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2006 Assistant Defence Estate Officer, Near Goa Traffic Police Cell, Panaji-Goa 403 001. ... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Communidade of Cotombi through its Attorney Shri Chandrakant Y. P. Dessai, r/o. Cotombi, P. O. Chandor, Salcete, Goa. 2. Dy. Collector & SDO, Land Acquisition Officer, Quepem, Goa. ... Respondents Shri C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for the Appellant. Mr. M. Amonkar, Advocate for the Respondent no.2. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 15 th July, 2011. JUDGMENT The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 30.08.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.11 of 2005. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), an area of 4876 square metres was acquired by the Appellants for the camp training of recruits of 3 MTR (2STC) from the property surveyed under no. 2/1 situated at Cotombi Village. By an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the said Act, a sum of Rs.12/- per square metres was -2- offered for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.125/- per square metre. 2. By Judgment and Award dated 30.08.2006, the Reference Court partly allowed the Reference and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Appellant, has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has totally misdirected itself in enhancing the compensation in respect of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has not at all considered that the instances relied by the Respondent are not comparable to the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that the acquired land is located in a remote Village where there were no signs of development at the relevant time. The learned Counsel further submitted that the infrastructure for the purpose of development was not at all available in the vicinity of the acquired land and, as such, the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record and submitted that the Respondents have failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contention that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Counsel as such pointed out that the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the reference -3- filed by the Respondent be rejected. 4. The Respondent no.1 though served failed to remain present at the time of hearing of the above Appeal. 5. Shri M. Amonkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent no.2 has supported the submissions of the learned Asst. Solicitor General. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal:- Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation with respect to the land acquired at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. meter? 7. In support of their claim for enhancement of compensation, the Respondents have examined their Attorney, who has stated that the land was acquired pursuant to a Notification dated 29.09.1992 for the said purpose admeasuring an area of 4876 square metres. He has further admitted that in view of the dispute raised by other interested parties, the matter was first referred under Section 30 of the said Act to the learned District Judge and that by an award dated 28.02.2003, the amount was ordered to be paid to the Respondents. But however, an Appeal challenging the said Award is pending before this Court. He has further stated that acquired portion of the land is located within the jurisdiction of the Village Panchayat of Avedem-Cotombi, Chafi, in a residential zone and is about 3.5 kilometres from the centrally located Quepem city. He has further stated that the -4- property is accessible from the roads leading from Cotombi to Quepem and Sanvordem-Margao and in the locality necessary amenities were available at the relevant time. He has further stated that the land at Cotombi is a fast developed area. In support of his claim for enhancement, he has produced the Sale Deed dated 13.04.1994, which land is located at a distance of 500 metres from the acquired land. The price mentioned in the said Sale Deed is at the rate of Rs.110/- per square metre. He has also relied upon the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 19.01.1989 and that the land subject matter of the said acquisition is at a distance of about 50 metres from the acquired land. He has further stated that in 1984, the compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metres was paid to the owners and that the nature of both the land is the same. He has further claimed for a compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per square metre. In his cross examination, he has admitted that part of the land was acquired for the distributor of the Selaulim Irigation Project. He has further admitted that Notification under Section 4 was issued on 21.06.1990 and not on 29.09.1992. He has further stated that he is not aware about the length and breadth of the Sale Deed plot. He has further admitted that two small strips of land were sold by the Vendors by the said Sale Deed. He has further stated that he is not aware as to whether the said two strips were purchased as a strip of access to the plot. With regard to the land which was subject matter of the Award dated 19.01.1989, he has further stated that there is a lake in the said property and that the land was acquired for the construction of the road. He has further stated that the distance from the acquired land is about 500 metres and that the land is bharad. He has further stated that he has also seen the land which was subject matter of the Award dated 11.08.2005 and that Government has not accepted the -5- finding of the said Award. 8. The next witness examined is Balkrishnan Dessai who deposed on behalf of the Appellants. He stated that he had seen the land when the possession was taken by the Department and that the land is a bharad land having a slight slope. He has further stated that there is a burial ground which is about 200 metres away from the acquired land. In the cross examination, he has stated that from Rawanfond it takes about 20 to 25 minutes by car to reach the acquired land. He has further stated that he is not aware of the area of the property surveyed under no. 2/1. He denied the suggestion that the residential locality is within the radius of 500 metres from the acquired land. 9. The learned Reference Court after appreciating the evidence on record has fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. The learned Judge has referred to the Judgment passed in Land Acquisition Case no. 12/2005, wherein the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.48/- per square metre. But however, the said Judgment dated 02.02.2006 has been set aside by this Court while disposing of First Appeal no. 107/2006 and the matter has been remanded to the Reference Court for deciding the reference afresh. But, however, the learned Asst. Solicitor General has fairly conceded that in Land Acquisition No. 91/1990 by an Award passed by the learned District Judge dated 20.04.1993, the land acquired therein at Cotombi Village for the purpose of construction of water courses in command area of Selaulim Irrigation Project, the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. An appeal -6- challenging the said Judgment being First Appeal no. 40/1993 was dismissed by this Court. The fact that the land acquired herein is comparable to the said land and a part thereof is surveyed under same survey numbers, has not been disputed by the Appellants. Hence, the said Award passed by the learned District Judge which has been confirmed by this Court can form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. Apart from that, the Respondents have also produced an Award at exhibit C – 20, under Section 11 of the said Act whereby land was acquired for the improving of Cotombi to Assolda road via Lake pursuant to a Notification dated 18.06.1984, wherein an amount was offered for the land acquired therein at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. Considering that the land therein and the land in the present proceedings is also located at Cotombi, I find that the said Award can also be considered for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. There is no doubt that there is a time gap between the Section 4 Notification in the earlier case which would require an escalation to be given on account of the appreciation to the value of the land though there is no material to substantiate the extent of said appreciation but, however, considering that the land acquired belongs to the Communidade which is subjected to the restrictions under the provisions of Code of Communidade, any escalation on account of the appreciation in the value of land would be set off from the deduction to be made in the value on account of the fact that the land belonged to the Communidade. Hence, I find that the market value of the land fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre is just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The contentions of the learned Asst. Solicitor General that there is no evidence to substantiate the claim of the Appellants to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate, cannot be -7- accepted. On the basis of the previous awards, the Respondents have established that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. The Respondents have neither filed Cross Objections or Cross Appeal challenging the Award of the Reference Court. Hence, I have no reason to interfere in the impugned Judgment fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. No doubt the amount of compensation will be made on the basis of the final adjudication of the reference under Section 30 of the said Act which is admitted to be pending. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following order:- ORDER The Appeal stands dismissed with no orders as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*