-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 114 OF 2004 1. Deputy Collector & SDO Ponda Sub-Division, Ponda – Goa. 2. Director of Tourism, Patto – Panaji. …... Appellants V e r s u s Shri Mahesh M. Rao, Attorney of Shri Manguesh Devasthan, resident of Mangueshi. ….. Respondent. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. I. Agha, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 17 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The Appellants takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 26th February, 2004, passed by the learned IInd Ad-Hoc Additional District Judge, at Panaji, in Land Acquisition Case no.261/1996. 2. The Appellants pursuant to a notification, acquired an area of 20190 square metres surveyed under no.45/2 Part and 1032 square metres of -2- the property surveyed under no.25 Part situated at Mangueshi which was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as ‘the said Act’) dated 30/08/1994 for parking facilities at Mangueshi Temple, Ponda. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.22.50 per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondents filed the reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed an enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.300/- to Rs.350/- per square metre. By judgment and award dated 26/02/2004, the Reference Court fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has misdirected itself in enhancing the compensation from Rs.22.50 to Rs.30/- per square metre. He further pointed out that the Reference Court had failed to disclose any reasons as to why such enhancement has been granted to the Appellant. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the Reference Court has gone on the assumption that an appeal was preferred before the Reference Court against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Counsel further submitted that the reference under Section 18 of the said Act is against the non acceptance of the offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the market value would have to be determined by the -3- Reference Court. The learned Counsel has submitted that as the Respondent has failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and the question of any enhancement would not arise at all. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has submitted that the Respondent has produced sale instance in the adjacent property wherein developed plots were sold at the rate of Rs.196/- per square metre. He further submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously discarded the said sale instance only on the basis that the same are developed plots when the law is well settled that even for the purpose of determining the market value of the land acquired of large tracks of land the price fetched for the developed plots can form the basis after suitable deductions. He further submitted that the amount enhanced by the Reference Court is too meagre and the Reference Court ought to have given a much higher compensation. The learned Counsel submitted that the compensation ought to have been at least Rs.150/- per square metre for the land acquired. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellants and 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 land acquired as on the date of Section 4 notification at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre ? -4- 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the Reference Court has erroneously rejected the sale instance produced by the Respondent which are at Exhibit AW1/5, on the ground that the lands in the sale instances are developed plots. The Reference Court has given a categorical finding that all the lands which are subject matter of the sale instances are of the same nature as compared with the land acquired. As such, there was no justification for the Reference Court to discard the sale instances only on such ground. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2010 (1) S.C.C. 444 in the case of Subh Ram V/s State of Haryana has held that even for the purpose of determining the market value of all tracks of land, sale instances of developed plots can form the basis when no other sale instance of large properties are available in the vicinity of the acquired land. In the present case, as there was no other sale instance produced by any of the parties, the Reference Court could have relied upon the said sale instance for the purpose of determining the market value of the land acquired in the present case by effecting suitable deductions on account of the development charges and dissimilarities of both the lands. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the price mentioned in the said Sale Deed dated 10/10/1991 is Rs.225/- per square metre for an area of 306 square metres which is adjacent to the acquired land. The Reference Court while fixing the market value of the land acquired has determined the amount at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. Considering the said judgment of the Apex Court wherein the deduction on -5- account of development charges, etc. can range from 25% to75%, I find that the there is no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court. Besides that the land acquired was used only for agricultural purposes as can be ascertained from the evidence on record. The Respondent has not filed any cross appeal nor has challenged the judgment passed by the Reference Court for an enhancement of compensation as awarded in the impugned judgment and award. Considering the material on record, I find that there is no reason which calls for any interference in the impugned judgment and award. The learned Government Advocate is not justified to contend that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award is just and proper. There is ample of evidence on record adduced by the Respondent that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The contention of the learned Counsel that the amount is to be fixed at Rs.150/- per square metre cannot be accepted as the Respondent has not filed any cross objection nor filed any cross appeal challenging the impugned judgment and award apart from the fact that considering the dissimilar factors of the acquired land and the sale instance, the compensation fixed by the Reference Court cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 7. There is no merit in the above appeal and as such the appeal stands dismissed with no orders as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. at*