1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.54 OF 2003 1) State of Goa, through the Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Ponda, Sub-division, Ponda,Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D.XVIII (R), PWD , Ponda, Goa. .. Appellants Versus Shri Prabhakar Purhshottam Malik, resident of Gaonkarwada, Kudnem, Goa. .. Respondent. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. K. B. Surjuse, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 21 st September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : By this appeal, the appellants take exceptions to the judgment and award dated 26th July, 2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No.71/98 partly allowing the reference. 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the 2 Land Acquisition Act ('The Act' for short) and published in official gazette dated 7th March, 1991, Government of Goa acquired lands of different persons for public purpose namely- construction of road from Maharwada to Dhado Virdi. An area admeasuring 1422 square meters bearing survey nos. 47/1, 47/2, 47/3, 47/4, 47/5 and 47/9 situated at Kudnem, Bicholim Taluka belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/ per square meter. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer (The LAO) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.12.70 per square meter. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square meter. 4. In Land Acquisition Case No.71/1998, the respondent examined himself (AW1) and Hemant Patil- AW2, Engineer. The appellants herein have examined A. B. Raut- Assistant Engineer in respect of their case. He also produced sale deed Exh.24 in respect of an area of 270 square meters situated at Vasantnagar, Sanquelim, which was sold for 3 consideration of Rs.2,500/-. The Reference Court upon appreciation of evidence, held that the compensation granted was on lower side and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.20/- per square meter. 5. The Reference Court for the purpose of fixing the higher rate placed reliance upon several factors like the acquired land was plain and was fit for construction purpose and there were residential houses at a distance of about 400 to 500 meters from the acquired land. Further, the Reference Court held that the facilities like school, hospital, panchayat office, temple were within the distance of about 400 to 500 meters from the acquired land. The Reference Court took judicial notice of the fact that prices of the land had increased considerably during the last decade and accordingly, fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.20/- per square meter. 6. Mr. Vahidulla, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court could not have granted enhanced compensation on the basis of the nature of the property and facilities, and in the absence of any evidence having been led 4 by the respondent in support of higher compensation, the Reference Court ought to have rejected the reference. He further submitted that the respondent had not discharged the burden of proving that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and as such, the Reference Court has erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs.12.70 to Rs.20/- per square meter. 7. Mr. Lotlikar,learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that having regard to the increase granted by the Reference Court and the area acquired, this is not fit case in which this Court should interfere with the impugned award since the total amount granted in favour of the respondent by the LAO was Rs.18,319/- and with all the statutory benefits works out to about Rs.55,792/-. He , therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted with the impugned award. Mr. Lotlikar submitted that the Reference Court has rightly awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per square meter after taking into consideration several factors like location, building potential and several facilities like school, hospital, etc. at the distance of about 400 to 500 meters from the acquired land. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the 5 case of Airports Authority of India Vs. Satyagopal Roy and others; (2002)3 SCC 527, Special Land Acquisition Officer s. Mahaboob and another; (2009)14 SCC 54 and unreported judgment in First Appeal No.175/2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in which this Court has refused to interfere with the award on the ground that the total compensation was a meager sum. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. In view of the rival submissions, the following point arises for determination of the appeal : “Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.20/- per square meter ?” 10. No doubt, Mr. Vahidulla is right in contending that the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation solely on the ground that there were several facilities available around the acquired land. However, considering the increase granted by the Reference Court and 6 the factors considered by the Reference Court like location, building potential of the acquired land and facilities like school, hospital, panchayat, temple etc. at a distance of about 400 to 500 meters from the acquired land, I am of the considered opinion that Mr. Lotlikar is justified in placing reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above and the unreported judgment in First Appeal No.175/2003 passed by the learned Single Judge, in which the Apex Court and the learned Judge of this Court, has refused to interfere with the award granting higher compensation on the ground that the compensation granted is meager. In the present case, the area acquired is 1422 square meters and the total area acquired is 2132 square meters. Moreover, the respondent has not received compensation awarded since there was dispute between several parties in respect of the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land, which has been decided in Land Acquisition Case No.124/1996 by award dated 30th October 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge,Mapusa in which the respondent has been held entitled to receive the entire compensation. Although the ground on which the higher compensation was granted cannot be sustained, I am of the considered opinion that having regard to increase in 7 compensation granted, this is not fit case in which this Court should interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA