- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2004. 1 Deputy Collector & DSO, Quepem and LAO. 2 The Executive Engineer, Div. XVII (R-C), PWD, Ponda Goa. ........ Appellants. Versus Shri Shankar D. Nadkarni, r/o. Dando, Sanquem, Goa. ......... Respondent. Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Ms. F. Mesquita, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:-F. M. REIS, J. Date:-8th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition case no.83/2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are:- By notification dated 29.12.1994 which was published in - 2 - Official Gazette dated 12.1.1995, the land belonging to the Respondent was intended to be acquired, admeasuring an area of 28 square metres surveyed under no.30 of village Sanquem for the purpose of improvement and black topping of Tarimol to Chicolmol road in Sanquem Taluka. 3. By an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at Rs.26/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount the Respondent preferred reference under section 18 for enhancement of compensation. 4. By the impugned Judgment and Award dated 31.8.2004, the reference preferred by the Respondent was partly allowed and the Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 51/- per square metre. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 6. Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government - 3 - Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants has submitted that the Reference Court has totally erred in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.51/-per square metre. She further submitted that the Reference Court failed to scrutinize that no comparable sale instance has been produced by the Respondent to substantiate his claim for enhancement. She further pointed out that the land acquired was in rural area and the question of giving escalation at the rate of 10% per annum on cumulative basis does not arise at all as the Respondent has failed to lead evidence to establish such escalation. She further pointed out that the Respondent has failed to adduce evidence to substantiate that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and as such the reference deserves to be rejected. 7. On the other hand Ms. F. Mesquita learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has supported the impugned Judgment. She further submitted that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the sale deed dated 17.2.1981 at exhibit 17 to fix the market value of the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that by Judgment passed by this Court dated 30.8.2010 in First Appeal no.33/2003 the price fixed at the rate of Rs.31/- per square metre in respect of the property surveyed under no.30(part) - 4 - was upheld. She further submitted that the land in the present case is surveyed under no. 30 and as such no interference is called for in the present appeal. 8. Having heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants and learned Counsel for the Respondent and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arise in the present appeal:- POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the acquired land as on date of section 4 notification at the rate of Rs.51/- per square metre? 9. On perusal of the Judgment dated 30.8.2010 in First Appeal no. 33/2003, I find that this Court has held that the market value of the land is at the rate of Rs.31/- per square metre in respect of land surveyed under no.30/0 and the land which was subject matter of the present acquisition is also surveyed under no.30. Hence the value accepted by this Court in the said First Appeal No.33/2003 in respect of a part of the same survey number can form the basis to fix the market value of the land acquired. However the notification in the said proceeding before this Court in First Appeal no. 33/2002 were - 5 - published on 9.2.1989, whereas in the present case the notification has been published on 12.1.1995 which is within a gap of 6 years. Apart from that the evidence adduced by the parties in the said judgment shows that the value of the land acquired in the year 1979 was at the rate of Rs.25/- per square metre in respect of property surveyed under no.30/0 which was also the subject matter of the land acquired in said appeal. The market value of the land acquired in the year 1989 has been fixed at the rate of Rs.31/- per square metre. The said aspect would be material to fix the escalation in the present case. 10. In the facts and circumstances, I find that the Reference Court was not justified in giving escalation of 10% on cumulative basis in view of what has been stated above considering that the land was in rural area and no evidence was adduced by the Respondent to establish such escalation. The Apex Court in Judgment reported in 2008 (14) S.C.C. 745 in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited V/s Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another has held at para 14 thus : “On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% - 6 - or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.” 11. In view of the said judgment of the Apex Court and for the reasons stated above, I find that the escalation ought to be have been 7.5% per annum on cumulative basis as the land was in rural area and no evidence is produced about any development in the vicinity of the acquired land. As such the market value of the land acquired works out to Rs. 48/- per square metre approximately. I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case the market value of the acquired land is to be fixed at Rs. 48/- per square metre and to that extent the impugned judgment deserves to be modified. Hence point - 7 - for determination is answered accordingly. 12. In the circumstance, I pass the following:- O R D E R i. The Appeal is partly allowed. ii. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 31.8.2004 is modified and the market value of the land acquired is fixed at Rs. 48/- per square metre for the land acquired. Remaining part of the Award, granting all the statutory benefits is confirmed. iii. Registrar shall disburse the amount to the Respondent after three months from today in accordance with above judgment alongwith interest accrued thereon. Excess amount deposited shall be refunded to the Appellants with accrued interest thereon. iv. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. vn*