1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 180/2004. 1. The Deputy Collector, (L.A.), Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W. D. XIV (N.H.), P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao, Goa. … Appellants. V/s Smt. Quiteria Mascarenhas, through Attorney Thomas Gonsalves, C/o Milan Lodge, Station Road, Margao. … Respondent. Ms. S. Mordekar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : F. M. REIS , J. DATE : 21 st October 2010 . ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 31.3.2004 passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, South 2 Goa, Margao in LAC No. 61/2001. 2. A portion of the property belonging to the respondents came to be acquired pursuant to the notification dated 6.5.1998 published in the Official Gazette dated 5.6.1998, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the said Act) admeasuring an area of 95 sq. metres from the property surveyed under Chalta No. 9 of P. T. Sheet No. 101 of Margao city for the purpose of widening and improvement of National Highway No. 14. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO for short) by an award under Section 11 of the said Act offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq. metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act and claim sum of Rs. 500/- per sq. metre for the land acquired. The Reference Court by judgment and award dated 31.3.2004 fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 190/- per sq. metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. The learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the sale instance referred by the Reference Court is not at all 3 comparable with the acquired land. She further submitted that the land acquired is adjoining the existing road and the same was subject to restrictions as imposed by the Statutory authorities and had no potential value. The learned Addl. Government Advocate further submitted that the Reference Court has granted an escalation of 10% from the date of agreement of sale, which is erroneous. She further pointed out that pursuant to the agreement in the year 1992 only a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was paid by the vendor and the remaining amount was a deferred payment effected in 1994 and as such the Reference Court has not taken this into consideration whilst granting the said escalation. The learned Addl. Government Advocate further submitted that as such the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the acquired land is adjoining the road near the Central KTC bus stand at Margao city wherein there are other commercial establishments in the vicinity. He further pointed out that the acquired land is also close to business premises, offices etc. which are situated close to the acquired land. He submitted that the acquired land has high potential 4 for construction purposes and as such the appeal deserves to be rejected. He submitted that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is much less than the actual market value prevailing in the vicinity of the acquired land. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 190/- per sq. metre? 6. On perusal of the record, I find that the respondents have produced only one sale instance which was comparable to the land acquired. The said sale deed is dated 30.11.1994 which is at exhibit 16. The subject matter of the said sale instance is an area of 1655 sq. metres which was sold for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- which works out at the rate of Rs. 302/- per sq. metre. The said sale deed plot is at a distance of 500 metres from the acquired land. The sale instance further demonstrates that the sale deed was executed pursuant 5 to an agreement dated 13.4.1992 and that the original vendor had expired after the execution of the said agreement. The recital of the said sale deed further discloses that at the time of the said agreement only a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was paid to the deceased vendor and that the remaining amount was paid on different occasions all in the year 1994 which worked out to Rs. 5,00,000/- as on the date of sale deed. The agreement for sale has not been produced by the respondent to ascertain whether the price fixed therein was the same as that found in the said sale instance. No doubt the agreement was of the year 1992, but the sale deed was executed only in the year 1994 and there was admittedly a deferred payment of more than 80% amount which was paid in the year 1994 i.e. two years thereafter. This factor has not been considered by the Reference Court while granting the escalation at the rate of 10% from the date of the agreement of sale in the year 1992. No doubt the evidence discloses that the acquired land is located in the Margao city and the sale deed plot is at a distance of 500 metres from the acquired land, and the said sale deed plot is said to be crossed by the link road which links Margao-Cortalim and Margao-Ponda. The land which has been acquired is in fact for widening of the same road. This discloses that the sale deed plot is in the vicinity of the acquired land. As such, the contention of the 6 learned Addl. Government Advocate that the sale instance is not comparable with acquired land deserves to be rejected. The Reference Court after considering the dissimilarities of the acquired land vis a vis the sale instance has effected deduction of 50% for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. The acquired land was within the road widening area. The Reference Court after considering different factors including the fact that the land acquired was in the transportation zone which was not disputed by the respondents has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 113/- per sq. metre. I find no infirmity or any error committed by the Reference Court in arriving at the said amount after giving the said deductions on the basis of the material on record. But however, the Reference Court has noted that the agreement for sale was dated 13.04.1992 and the notification in the present case was published in the Official Gazette on 05.06.1998 and has given an escalation of 10% p.a. for a period of 6 years and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 190/- per sq. metre for the land acquired. As stated above, the sale deed suggest that at the time of agreement of sale only about 12% of the consideration was paid while subsequent amount was paid from March 1994. As such, I find that the escalation ought to have been granted only for a period of 5 years instead of 6 years as allowed by 7 the Reference Court. The amount as such works out to Rs. 179/- per sq. metre approximately. As the land is located in the commercial city and has high potentiality for non agricultural purposes, and on the basis of the said sale instance the market value of the acquired land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 179/- per sq. metre. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following: O R D E R i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 31.03.2004 is modified and the market value of the acquired land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 179/- per sq. metre. The remaining part of the award granting statutory benefits is confirmed. iii. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. MF/-