:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2004 1. Dy. Collector & S.D.O. Sub Division, South Goa, Margao Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Work Division X, Pajimol Sanguem Goa. ... Appellants V e r s u s Smt. Jevina Pereira e Fernandes, r/o Sibrette Velim, Salcete Goa. ... Respondent Mr. A. Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Respondent absent though served. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATED : 24 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : The above Appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 74/2002. The land belonging to the Respondent came to be acquired pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' ) bearing No. 22/55/99-RD dated 26th October, 1999 published in the Official Gazette dated 3rd February, 2000 having an area :2: of 775 square metres from the property surveyed under survey No. 326/1 for the purpose of construction of branch canal-I of District D3 of SIP in Chinchinim Village of Salcete Taluka. By an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the said Act dated 25th October, 2000, a compensation was fixed for the land acquired belonging to the Respondent is at the rate of Rs.11/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of a compensation and claimed an amount of Rs.100/- per square metre for the land acquired. The Reference Court after recording of evidence and hearing the respective parties, by judgment and award dated 31st March, 2004 fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.100/- per square metre. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has totally misconstrued the sale deed produced by the Respondent which is at Exhibit 15 to come to the conclusion that the land acquired has a market value of Rs.100/- per square metre on the relevant date. He further submitted that the Reference Court has arbitrarily fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per square metre without applying its mind to the facts on record. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said sale instance could not be relied upon as the same was purchased in view of :3: the fact that the land which was the subject matter of the said sale deed was adjoining the property of the purchaser. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate her allegation that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Respondent has deliberately purchased the said land as she was very well aware that there was an impending acquisition in respect of the said land and as such the said sale instance could not be considered to be a genuine document for fixing the market value. The learned Counsel as such submitted that the Appeal deserves to be allowed and the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has to be confirmed. 3. The Respondent though served failed to remain present nor represented by any Counsel at the time of hearing of the above Appeal. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and on perusal of 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 the date of Section 4 notification at the rate of Rs.100/- per square metre ? :4: 5. In support of her claim for enhancement of a compensation, the Respondent has stated in her affidavit in evidence that the actual market value of the acquired land at the relevant period was Rs.100/- per square metre for which rate the Respondent had purchased the said property by a deed of sale dated 16th September, 1998 which is duly registered before the Sub-Registrar of Salcete. The said sale deed is at Exhibit 15. She has further stated that the notification in the present case was published on 3rd February, 2000 in the Official Gazette and the said sale deed was executed in September, 1998 within a gap of over one year. The area acquired was about 775 square metres out of an area of 1369 square metres. In her cross examination, she has admitted that the property surveyed under No.326/1 was low line paddy field and it is about one metre below the road level. She has further stated that she has cultivated the said paddy field for about four years since the date of the purchase up to the year 2002. She has further stated that she has purchased the said land as it was a paddy field adjoining to her property and as she wanted to use the said land for agricultural purpose. She has further stated that there was a katcha road which was abutting the said land of the vendors but however she was not using the same as the said property was abutting the main road. She has denied the suggestion that the sale deed plot was not accessible by a road. She has denied the suggestion that she has purchased the said property as she was aware about the acquisition. On perusal of sale deed at Exhibit 15, it is found :5: that the Respondent has purchased the property Caulicungo ( part ) admeasuring an area of 1369 square metres for a total consideration of Rs.1,36,900/-. The sale deed further acknowledges the receipt of the said consideration by the vendors. The schedule of the said sale deed shows that the property which was the subject matter of the said sale instance was a part of the larger property and forms a part of the property surveyed under survey No.326/1(part) of village Chinchinim of Salcete Taluka. The plan attached to the sale deed shows that towards the southern side of the said property is the property belonging to the Respondent and towards the northern side is the remaining portion of the property of the vendors. On perusing the evidence on record, there is no challenge in the cross examination of the Respondent to the effect that the said sale deed was a sham or bogus sale instance. In fact the Respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate her allegation that the said sale instance was executed only because the property was likely to be acquired. In fact there is a gap of more than one year from the date of the said sale deed and the date of Section 4 notification in the present case. This fact itself nullifies the allegation of the Appellants that the said sale deed was executed only because the land was likely to be acquired. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1996 (2) SCC 152 in the case of Shakuntalabai ( Smt.) and others V/s State of Maharashtra has held at para 4 thus : :6: “4. The question, therefore, is whether the High Court has committed any manifest error of law or had applied any wrong principle of law in determining the compensation and whether its failure to consider Exs. 38 and 44 does make any difference. Having given our consideration to the contention of Shri Mohta, we think that the High Court had not committed any manifest error of law or omitted to apply any correct principle of law. It is seen that if there is evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or nearabout the area which possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is :7: unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands...................” 6. In the present case, the Appellants have failed to adduce any evidence to impeach the genuineness of the said sale deed at Exhibit 15. There is no reason for awarding any compensation different from the price at which the Respondent has purchased the land acquired. In fact there is a gap of one year between the sale deed and Section 4 notification, for which an escalation could have been awarded. In any case, the Reference Court after considering the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land to be at Rs.100/- per square metre. In the pecuniary facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the Respondent herself has purchased the acquired land about one year prior to Section 4 notification at the rate of Rs.100/- per square metre, I find that no interference is called for in determination of the compensation by the Reference Court in respect of the land acquired. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the above Appeal and as such the Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J at*