:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2002 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2002 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2002 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2002 FIRST APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2002 Goa Industrial Development Corporation, a Statutory Body incorporated under the provisions of the Goa Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1965, through its Chief General Manager, having office at Saraswati Mandir Building, 18th June Road, Panaji Goa. ... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Shri Manuel Francisco Sebastiao Fernandes ( since deceased ), through his legal representatives (A) Mrs. Regina Fernandes, (B) Shri John Bosco, (C) Elvin Fernandes, (D) Fabina Fernandes, All residing near Bungalow, Tivim, Bardez Goa. 2. Deputy Collector & SDO, Land Acquisition Officer, Mapusa Sub Division, Mapusa Goa. ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2. :2: WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2002 Goa Industrial Development Corporation, a Statutory Body incorporated under the provisions of the Goa Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1965, through its Chief General Manager, having office at Saraswati Mandir Building, 18th June Road, Panaji Goa. ... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Shri Mahadev Vassu Morajkar, resident of Mulgao, Bicholim Goa. 2. Deputy Collector & SDO, Land Acquisition Officer, Mapusa Sub Division, Mapusa Goa. ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2002 Industrial Development Corporation, a Statutory Body incorporated under the Goa Industrial Development Corporation Act, through its Chief General Manager, having office at Saraswati Mandir Building, 18th June Road, Panaji Goa. ... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Shri Krishnarao Vinayak Shet Narvenkar, r/o Bazarwado, Marcela, Ponda. :3: 2. Deputy Collector & SDO, Land Acquisition Officer, Mapusa Sub Division, Mapusa Goa. ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2002 Industrial Development Corporation, incorporated under the Goa Industrial Development Corporation Act, through General Manager, having office at Saraswati Mandir Building, 18th June Road, Panaji Goa. ... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Shri Parshuram Divakar Marathe, resident of Mulgao, Bicholim Goa. 2. Deputy Collector & SDO, Land Acquisition Officer, Mapusa Sub Division, Mapusa Goa. ... Respondents Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 22 nd OCTOBER,2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : :4: 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The lands in all the appeals were acquired by the same notification namely notification dated 18th December, 1990 published on 7th March, 1991 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short 'the said Act'). Hence, all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. Re : First Appeal Nos. 297, 286 and 51 of 2002 2. The respondent no.1 in First Appeal No. 297 of 2002 was an owner of a plot of land bearing plot no.1 admeasuring an area of 440 square metres under a lay out of survey No.37/2 of village Saleli Taluka Sattari of District North Goa. The respondent no.1 in First Appeal No. 286 of 2002 was an owner of a plot no.7 under the same lay out. The respondent no.1 in First Appeal No. 51 of 2002 was an owner of a plot no. 6 under the same lay out. 3. By a notification dated 18th December, 1990 published on 7th March, 1991, the lands of the respondents i.e. the plot nos. 1, 6 and 7 of survey No.37/2 along with other several lands were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of expansion of existing Honda Industrial Estate at villages Bhuimpal and Saleli. A common award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 23rd September, 1994 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per square metre for the plot nos. 1, 6 :5: and 7. 4. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the respondents filed separate applications to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector made separate references to the District Judge at North Goa. All the references were allotted by the learned District Judge to the Additional District Judge – II for disposal. By a judgment and award dated 4th June, 2001 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 118/97, the Reference Court allowed the reference and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per square metre for the plot no. 1. By a judgment and award dated 16th March, 2001 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 114/97, the Reference Court allowed the reference and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.72.05 per square metre in respect of plot no.7. By a judgment and award dated 30th April, 2001 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 116/97, the Reference Court allowed the reference and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.72.05 per square metre for the plot no.6. 5. Being aggrieved by the decisions of the Reference Court in the aforesaid three references, the Goa Industrial Development Corporation – the acquiring body has filed the aforesaid three appeals. :6: Re: First Appeal No. 297 of 2002 6. The respondent had purchased the land bearing plot no.1 admeasuring 440 square metres out of the lay out of survey No.37/2 of village Saleli under a sale deed dated 28th December, 1989 from Mr. Narcinv Chari ( Narsinva Chari ) for Rs.40,000/-. A notification for the acquisition of the very plot was issued one year after the purchase i.e. on 18th December, 1990 by the respondent. The respondent died during the pendency of the reference and his legal representatives were brought on record. Widow of the respondent examined herself on oath and produced a certified copy of the sale deed on record. She has stated that her husband had purchased the plot for Rs.40,000/- under a sale deed dated 28th December, 1989 by paying the market value. The respondent also examined Mr. Narcinva Chari, the vendor of the sale deed as a witness (AW2). Mr. Chari in his deposition has stated that he had sold the plot no.1 to the respondent for Rs.40,000/-. He further deposed that the plot was sold at the rate which was prevailing market rate at the time of the sale. During the cross examination it was suggested to Mr. Chari (AW2) that he had purchased the larger land at the rate of Rs.10/- per square metre. He further stated that the land purchased by him was laid out into building plots. He further stated that the plot no.1 was abutting the main road which was nine metres wide and there was also another road of six metres wide to the east of the plot no.1. He also stated that the plot no.1 was on the road level and plain. In the cross examination he was asked :7: what was the prevailing rate in the year 1983 when he had purchased the entire land which was subsequently laid into plots. However, it was not suggested to him that the rate at which he sold the plot no.1 to the husband of respondent was higher than the market rate. The cross examination shows that it was not the contention of the appellant that the rate at which the plot no.1 was sold to the husband of respondent was not the market rate. The statement of AW2 in the examination in chief that he sold the plot no.1 to the respondent at the market rate has gone unchallenged. The appellant examined Mr. Ramnath Gaude (RW1), a field manager, land acquisition, of the appellant as a witness. He deposed about the acquisition of the land belonging to Nirmal society and stated that the land in the present acquisition was similar to the land of Nirmal society. He then referred to the award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 115/97 relating to the acquisition of the land belonging to the Nirmal society. He however did not depose about the date on which the notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was published in respect of the land acquired from Nirmal society by the appellant. He also did not mention about the rate at which the compensation was awarded by the Reference Court in respect of the land acquired from Nirmal society. In the cross examination, he admitted that the land acquired from Nirmal society was a large area and there was no development activity. He did not produce any plan nor did he produce any material to show what was the distance between the plot no.1 which :8: is the subject matter of the acquisition in the present case and the land of the Nirmal society. In my view therefore the evidence of Ramnath Gaude is of little assistance to the appellant. 7. The respondent had established that the very plot which was acquired in the year 1990 by the appellant was purchased by him exactly one year prior to the acquisition at the rate of Rs.90/- per square metre. The evidence of vendor was not shaken in the cross examination. The market rate at least one year prior to the date of the acquisition was Rs. 90/- per square metre. Consequently, the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.90/- per square metre by the Reference Court for plot no.1 cannot be said to be on the higher side. It is not the case of the appellant that the prices of the lands were falling between 1989 i.e. the date of the purchase of the acquired land by the respondent and the date of acquisition. On the other hand, there is a reason to believe that the prices were increasing. The appellant had already set up an industrial estate in the vicinity. The land in the present case was acquired for the expansion of that industrial estate. As such there was no reason for decrease in the price. On the other hand, in his cross examination in Land Acquisition Case No. 120/97 ( from which First Appeal No. 122/2002 arises ) the same witness RW1 has admitted that the prices were increasing. However, since the respondent has not filed any cross objections claiming any enhancement, I cannot award compensation at a rate the higher than :9: Rs.90/- per square metre which has been awarded by the Reference Court. I see no error in the view taken by the Reference Court in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per square metre to the respondent in First Appeal No.297 of 2002. Re : First Appeal No. 51 of 2002 8. The respondent no.1 examined himself and also produced a copy of a sale deed dated 28th December, 1989 executed by the Mr. Narcinva Chari in favour of the Mr. Manuel Fernandes, the respondent in First Appeal No. 297 of 2002. He also examined Mr. Chari the vendor of the sale deed dated 28th December, 1989 as a AW2. He also proved the sale deed. The layout plan of the property shows that the plot no.6 abuts the plot no.1 of the layout. The plot no.1 abuts the main road. The plot no.6 is immediately behind the plot no.1 the southern side. They share a common boundary. This plot no.6 has internal access of six metres wide. The Reference Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.72.05 in respect of this plot by making a deduction of Rs.17.95 from the value of the plot no.1. About 20% less compensation has been awarded to the respondent. Since no cross objection has been filed by this respondent also there is no scope for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that 20% deduction from the price of adjoining plot was improper. In any event there is no reason for reduction in the amount of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. :10: Re : First Appeal No. 286 of 2002 9. In this case the respondent No.1 examined himself as also examined Mr. Chari as a AW2 who proved the sale deed dated 28th December, 1989 in respect of the plot no.1. The layout plan shows that this plot no.7 is adjoining the plot no.6 i.e. second in line from the plot no.1. This plot is of the same lay out. The plot no.6 is appears to be identically situated and adjoining to plot no.7 in this appeal and both the plots have an access from the internal road which is six metres wide. Hence the market value of this plot will be the same as the plot no.6. I see no reason to interfere in the view taken by the Reference Court in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.72.05 per square metre. Re : First Appeal No. 122 of 2002 10. The respondent no.1 herein is the owner of the land bearing survey No.37/3 admeasuring 5750 square metres. This survey no.37/3 is adjoining to survey No.37/2. The price fixed by this Court by this very judgment for different plots adjoining survey no. 37/2 is between Rs.72.05 to Rs. 90/- per square metre. In respect of plot no.37/3 the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.39.45 per square metre. In para 17 of the decision, the Reference Court effected deductions of 40%, 20% and 10% for development, on account of largeness and for absence of infrastructural facilities. The price has been effectively reduced from Rs.90/- per square metre to Rs.39.45 per square :11: metre which is more than 50% deduction. In my view, the deduction appears to be appropriate. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the deduction was excessive. However no cross objection has been filed by the respondent. As such there is no scope for considering whether the deduction was excessive and that to increase the price. In any event there is no scope for making any further deduction or reducing price any further. Consequently, the rate of Rs.39.45 per square metre awarded by the Reference Court cannot be faulted with. 11. There is no merit in the appeals and the appeals are dismissed with costs. D. G. KARNIK, J. at*