1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2000 Shri Shrinivas Laxman Fadte, Sinavaddo, Shantadurga Temple, Sancoale, Goa. ... Appellant. Versus 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa, KRCL, Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, PO Navelim, Salcete, Goa 403 707. 2. The Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., 4th floor, Souza Towers, Church Square, Panai, Goa 403001. ... Respondents. Learned Advocate Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar for the Appellants. Learned Advocate Mr. E. Afonso for the Respondents. Coram: A. H. Joshi, J. Pronounced on :18th August 2009 J U D G M E N T Appellant's reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement has been rejected. 2 2. Particulars of the acquisition are as follows:- (a) Date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act:- 24.10.1991. (b) Land acquired :- 950 sq. meters. (c) Purpose :- Broad guage line of Konkan Railway. (d) Location :-Cortalimvillage of Mormugao Taluka. (e) Survey No :- 14/6 of Cortalim village. (f) Status of land :- Open plot having two trees, one garage. (g) Total amount of Compensation awarded by L.A.O. Rs. 36258.03 towards land Rs. 4 per sq. meter, as value of garage and Rs. 195/- for value of trees. (h) Claim under Section 18 of L.A.Act:- i. of Rs.600/- per sq. meter, for land, ii. Rs. 1,25,000/- for value of house; and iii. Rs. 125/- for value of trees. 3. In the reference court, appellant examined himself as witness No. 1 and an engineer Vikas Dessai as witness No. 2, to prove valuation and 3 Florina D'Souza as witness No. 3 to prove the sale instance. 4. The claimant has relied upon his sale deed executed on 27.12.1991, selling 400 sq. meters of land at the price of Rs. 200/- per sq. meter which pertains to his own land and is comparable. Admittedly this document is of the date later to notification under Section 4, and has its own handicaps. 5. The valuer has given in his valuation certificate dated 6.6.1994 his estimate of valuation of acquired land to Rs. 450/- per sq. meter and total market price to be Rs. 4,27,500/- and value of structure of workshop, depreciation to Rs. 1,92,000/-. 6. Learned reference court rejected claimant's evidence and dismissed the reference. 7. In this Court, the learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447 between Nelson Fernandes & ors. Vs. Special Land 4 Acquisition Officer, South Goa (and Konkan Railway). 8. Learned advocate has pointed out glaring concurrence of facts and comparison of acquired lands in case of present case with the Nelson's case Supra, as follows:- (a) Date of Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act is 25.8.94, i.e. : Same (b) Purpose of acquisition : Railways (c) Rate granted by L.A.O. : Rs.9/- and Rs.4/- per sq. meter. (d) Area of requisition : 385 sq.metres (e) Village : Cortalim (f) Proximity to village : Situated close to ferry point and 200 meters from Market, school, bank etc. 9. In the Nelson's case supra,:- (a) This Court had reversed the enhancement ordered by District Court and awarded the compensation by deciding the market value at the rate of Rs. 38/- per sq. meter. 5 (b) Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the enhanced compensation accepting the market value of land at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq. meter by reversing the judgment of This Court. 10. According to learned Advocate Mr. Murgaonkar for the appellant:- (a) The sale deed of claimant's own property is rightly neglected by the reference court being within one month after the notice of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act. (b) The compensation as awarded by Hon'ble Supreme Court based on the market price to be Rs. 250/- per sq. meter as of 1994 is certainly not an act on the part of claimant/ appellant. (c) The market value of the property under acquisiton therefore has to be very near to the value found and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as awarded in Nelson's case supra. (d) The market price was certainly far above and therefore, appellant has received much more price for land at same place, which though not believed, cannot be simply ignored. (e) Both lands namely appellant's land and one of Nelson supra are from the same village and both has proximity to ferry point. 6 11. This Court finds that though P.w.2's version has been disbelived, on market price, the factual data showing the distance, location, nature of property are not in any manner shown to be erroneous. 12. The claimant has thus proved by cogent evidence that the property could have fetched quite a fair value, though may not be exactly Rs. 400/- per sq. meters as spelt out in the sale deed of the property sold by the claimant or as sought to be proved by the valuer, but certainly for more than one awarded by L.A.O. 13. No distinguishing features are shown by the respondents in relation to the land from Cortalim village which was acquired for the same purpose by the same acquiring body, which was the subject matter of the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court and the plot of land, subject matter of the present petition. On the other hand, characteristics of similarity are obviously writ at large. 14. In this situation, the job of assessing fair 7 market value is resting on this Court. 15. This Court has to assess as to what may have been the market value on the basis of data relating to the distance etc. The facts as are proved by appellant is comparable with the situation of land subject matter in Nelson's case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ends of justice will meet by fixing the market value of acquired land at Rs. 150/- per sq. meter, which less by Rs. 100/- than in Nelson's case. 16. In this premises, appeal is party allowed. This Court holds that, the appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq. meter and all consequential amounts such as solatium, 12% component and interest according to law, after deducting the amount already paid, with costs throughout. Award be drawn accordingly. A.H.JOSHI, J. MF/-