1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.226 OF 2004 1. Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (Cell), Altinho, Panaji. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division – XXV(R), PWD, Fatorda, Margao. …. Appellants V/s Smt. Sitabai/Sita Govind Prabhu Gaonkar (deceased, through LR's) 1. Shri Ratnakar Govind Prabhu Gaonkar 2. Smt. Laxmi Ratnakar Prabhu Gaonkar 3. Shri Prashant Ratnakar Prabhu Gaonkar 4. Shri Vishant Ratnakar Prabhu Gaonkar 5. Smt. Anita Prashant Prabhu Gaonkar (all r/o. Kasalkar, Loliem, Canacona-Goa.) …. Respondents Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 10th DECEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 25/05/2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.125/2001. 2. By notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'the said Act'), a 2 portion of the property belonging to the respondents admeasuring an area of 1200 square metres from survey no.116/1, 200 square metres from survey no.116/3 and 1875 square metres from survey no.117/5 of village Loliem was intended to be acquired for the purpose of constructing a road from Shri Shankarsha temple to National Highway No.17 at Daptamol. The said notification was dated 14/10/1996 and published in the Official Gazette on 20/02/1997. 3. By an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the said Act dated 5/01/2000, the amount of Rs.6/- per square metre was offered to the respondents. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.150/- per square metre for the land acquired. 4. By judgment and award dated 25/05/2004, the learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the land acquired in respect of the property surveyed under no.116/1 at the rate of Rs.42/- per square metre and in respect of the property surveyed under no.116/3 the compensation was fixed at Rs.16/- per square metre. With regard to the claim for enhancement in respect 3 of the property surveyed under no.117/5, the claim for enhancement was refused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Ms. Susan Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that there was no evidence on record for the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that the market value of the land surveyed under no.116/1 was to be fixed at Rs.42/- per square metre and in respect of the land surveyed under no.116/3 was to be fixed at Rs.16/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the Reference Court for fixing the market value of the acquired land were not at all comparable. Learned Counsel further submitted that the sale deeds relied upon by the Reference Court at Exhibit 16 and 17 are abutting the National Highway, whereas the land acquired was not at all adjoining any public road. The learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of the expert cannot be relied upon for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further submitted that the acquired land has no frontage to the main road. The learned Counsel took me through the evidence on record and pointed out that there was no 4 material for the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was to be fixed at the rate of Rs.42/- per square metre and Rs.16/- per square metre in respect of two survey numbers. The respondents though served failed to remain present at the time of hearing. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of record following point for determination arises in the appeal. POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether Reference Court is justified to fix the market value of the acquired land in respect of property surveyed under no.116/1 at the rate of Rs.42/- per square metre and in respect of property surveyed under no.116/3 at the rate of Rs.16/- per square metre. 6. After appreciating the evidence on record and the evidence adduced by the respondents, specially the sale instances at Exhibit 16 and 17, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the land which was subject matter of the said sale deed survey no.356/10 was abutting the National Highway. The Reference Court further found that the said sale instances were executed after leaving a set back along the National Highway. It was further held that the land which was subject matter of the said Sale Deed plot was undeveloped, but the same possessed all the advantages of a 5 developed plot. 7. On perusal of the sale instances, I find that the property which was subject matter of the sale deed at Exhibit 16 was of regular shape and was bounded on one side by the National Highway. It is well settled that the price of land adjacent to the National Highway is much higher to the land which is located in the interior. The Reference Court further found that the land acquired under survey no.116/1 is located on the eastern side of the property and the same has no frontage to the National Highway. The Reference Court has also found the dissimilarities with regard to the land acquired and the sale deed plot and after considering all the dissimilarities has made a deduction of 75% and arrived at a figure of Rs.38/- per square metre, and after giving an escalation of 10% for a period of one year, considering the gap between the Section 4 notification and the date of the sale deed, the Reference Court has fixed the market value of the acquired land in respect of survey no.116/1 at the rate of Rs.42/- per square metre. 8. As far as the land in respect of survey no.116/3, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that it was a narrow strip of land and it was land locked and considering such dissimilar 6 factors has effected deduction of 90% and fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.15/- per square metre and after giving an escalation of 10% fixed the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.16/- per square metre in respect of the said land under survey no.116/3. 9. While disposing of First Appeal No.224/2004 with Cross- Objection No.3/2005 in respect of the land which was subject matter of the same notification, under survey no.116/4, this Court has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.65/- per square meter and that in respect of survey no.116/2 at the rate of Rs.32/- per square metre by considering the same sale instances. The land which is subject matter of the acquisition in the present case is located in the vicinity of the land which was the subject matter of the said notification. The respondents have not filed any cross-objections seeking any enhancement to the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court. 10. For the reasons stated in the judgment passed in the said First Appeal No.224/2004 with Cross-objection No.3/2005, I find that the amount fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.42/- per square metre in respect of the land under survey no.116/1 and 7 Rs.16/- per sauare meter in respect of land under survey no.116/3 cannot be said to be excessive and/or unreasonable. The contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants to the effect that there is no evidence to substantiate the comparability of the land acquired vis-a-vis the sale instances, cannot be accepted. The evidence discloses that the sale instances produced by the respondents are located in the same village and are situated in the vicinity of the acquired land. The dissimilar factors have been duly accounted for by the Reference Court while fixing the market value of the land. As such, I find there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in fixing the market value of the land acquired in the present case. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 11. In view of the above, I find there is no merit in the above appeal and, consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-