... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO.53 OF 2000 1. State of Goa, represented by the Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition) Collector of South Goa, Margao, Goa. 2. Block Development Officer, Canacona, Goa. ... Appellants v e r s u s Shri Mohandas Bhiku Bhat, r/o State Bank Housing Soceity, near Old Survey Office, Borda, Margao, Goa. ... Respondent Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S. Mahambre, Advocate for the Respondent. ... 2 ... CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED: 25.11.2008. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28.11.2008. JUDGMENT: By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 03.04.1999 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Magistrate in Land Acquisition Case No.16 of 1997 partly allowing the reference. 2. Vide Notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Official Gazette dated 31.03.1994, 3550 sq.mtrs. of land belonging to the respondent bearing survey no. 136/2 of village Loliem was acquired by the Government of Goa for cosntruction of Multipurpose ... 3 ... Building Complex. By award dated 14.09.1995 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.mtr. The respondent claimed Rs.200/- per sq.mtr. And also claimed Rs.45,000/- towards building, Rs.32,000/- towards house, Rs.15,000/- towards well and Rs.26,000/- for the trees situated in the acquired land. 3. In Land Acquisition Case No.16/1993, the respondent examined four witnesses, namely, respondent himself as Aw.1, Shridhar Kamat, Civil Engineer as Aw.2, Jiouttam Prabhu Dessai as Aw.3 and Baburao Prabhu Gaonkar as Aw.4. The appellants did not lead any evidence. The Reference Court placing reliance upon the sale deed dated 12.12.1991 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.mtr. rn respect of an area of 3400 sq.mtrs. since in respect of the structure falling in an area of 150 sq.mtrs. ... 4 ... compensation was already paid. The reference Court rejected the claim made by the respondent in respect of the building, house, well and the trees. The Reference Court awarded Rs.100/- per sq.mtr. in respect of an area of 3400 sq.mtrs. 4. The Reference Court did not place any reliance on the evidence of the valuer but relied upon the sale deed dated 12.12.1991 by which a plot of 1000 sq.mtrs. was sold by Baburao Prabhu Gaonkar, Aw.4. The Reference Court did not place reliance upon the other sale deed dated 12.10.1993 in respect of an area of 1070 sq.mtrs. sold by Jiouttam Prabhu Dessai, Aw.3. The sale dated 12.10.1993 was in respect of an area of 1070 sq.mtrs. whereas sale deed dated 12.11.1991 was in respect of an area of 1000 sq.mtrs. ... 5 ... 5. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 12.12.1991 at Exh.14, which was situated at a distance of about 2 kms. from the acquired land and did not place reliance upon the sale deed dated 12.10.1993 on the ground that the land sold by sale deed dated 12.12.1991 was land consisting of coconut groove and the acquired land was similar. The Reference Court held that the sale deed 12.10.1993 could not be relied for fixing market rate of the land land since the land sold by the said sale deed was rocky land. The Reference Court held that both these plots were almost equidistant from the acquired land but the plot in sale deed dated 12.12.1991 was comparable land. The Reference Court thereafter, increased the price of the sale deed plot dated 12.12.1991 by 10% every year. The Reference Court deducted another 20% on the ground that the plot acquired had a slight gradient whereas the plot ... 6 ... under Exh.14 was a level land. Thus, the Reference Court adjusted 20% increase granted on account of passage of time with 20% deduction towards the nature of the land. The Reference Court further held that since the sale deed plot at Exh.14 was on National highway, further deduction of 10% should be made while fixing the market rate and 10% increase on the ground that the acquired land was situated close to the market having civic amenities has been adjusted against the said increase of 10%. Thus, the Reference Court arrived at a figure at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.mtr. 6. Mr. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Reference Court ought to have relied upon the sale deed dated 12.10.1993 being closer in point of time than sale deed dated 12.12.1991. He further submitted that ... 7 ... deduction of 20% made by the Reference Court on the ground that the acquired land was sloppy land was on a lower side. He further urged that the Reference Court ought to have deducted 50% on the ground of largeness, first before considering the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis comparable plot. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mahambre, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Reference Court has rightly placed reliance on sale deed dated 12.12.1991 since the nature of the acquired land and the nature of the plot under sale deed dated 12.12.1991 was the same. He further submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the plot in sale deed 12.10.1993 was rocky land and therefore, the Reference Court has rightly placed reliance on the sale deed dated 12.12.1991. In so far as largeness of this plot is concerned, the ... 8 ... acquired land was 3400 sq.mtrs. whereas the area of the plot in sale deed dated 12.12.1991 is 1000 sq.mtrs. and therefore, there is no question of any deduction. He therefore, submitted that no interference is called for with the impugned order. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In view of the rival submissions of the learned counsel, the following point arises for my determination in the appeal : Whether the compensation granted at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.mtr. in respect of the acquired land in respect of 3400 sq.mtrs. is excessive ? If yes, ... 9 ... to what compensation, the respondent is entitled to ? 10. As stated above, the Reference Court has chosen to place reliance upon Exh.14 in preference to Exh.13, on the ground that the land in Exh.14 was comparable to the land in the acquired land and the land in Exh.13 was a rocky land. I do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Reference Court in as much as the land in Exh.13 is a rocky land as deposed by Aw.4 which evidence is no shaken in cross examination. In so far as deduction is concerned, I find merit in the submission of Mr. Rodrigues that the Reference Court ought to have made appropriate deduction in view of the fact that the acquired land was 3400 sq.mtrs. whereas the area of Exh.14 was 1070 sq.mtrs. In so far as the other deductions made by the Reference Court are concerned, I find that the ... 10 ... Reference Court has correctly made the deductions by applying the correct principles. In my considered opinion, having regard to the area of the acquired land and the area in Exh.14, the appropriate deduction would be 10%. The market rate in respect of the acquired land works out to Rs.90/- per sq.mtr. I therefore, hold that the respondent is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per sq.mtr. in respect of an area of 3400 sq.mtrs. The respondent is also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. In so far as rejection of the claim for building, house, well and trees are concerned, since there is no challenge, no fault can be found with the finding given by the Trial Court. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent is held entitled to ... 11 ... compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per sq.mtr. in respect of an area of 3400 sq.mtrs. There shall be no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.