1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2001 1. State of Goa, through the Dy. Collector & Sub-Divisional Officer, Ponda, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division II, P.W.D., Panaji, Goa. ....... Appellants. V/s Shri Gurudas Sinari also known as Gurunath Sinari also known as Boscora Ramchandra Porob Sinari, r/o. Fontainhas, Panaji, Goa. ........ Respondent. Mr. Shaikh Vahidulla, Govt. Advocate for the appellants. CORAM :- A.S. OKA, J. Date :- 25th June, 2010. ORAL J U D G M E N T : Heard learned Government Advocate for the appellants. The appellants have taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 3rd April, 2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji 2 in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) made at the instance of the respondent. Land admeasuring 1,645 sq. metres owned by the respondent situated in Village Gansim, Taluka Tiswadi, Goa was notified for acquisition on 4th January, 1985 under a notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act. The purpose of acquisition was for construction of Batim-Moula road. The Land Acquisition Officer offered market value at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq. metre. The award under Section 11 of the said Act was not accepted by the respondent and he applied for a reference under Section 18 of the said Act. Market value claimed in the said application was at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre. In addition to the said market value, a compensation was claimed on account of tamarind trees and other trees on the acquired land as well as a well. By the impugned award, the reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.77/- per sq. metre. However, the reference Court did not grant any enhancement on account of the well and the trees. 2. The learned Govt. Advocate has taken me through the notes of evidence and other relevant documents on record. He 3 submitted that the sale instance of the sale deed dated 17th October, 1985 (Exhibit AW.1/A) was not in respect of a comparable land. He submitted that in any event, the said sale was a distress sale which does not reflect the market value of the property sold. He invited my attention to the third witness examined by the respondent and submitted that the evidence of the said witness shows that the market value is not reflected from the said sale deed. He submitted that the only evidence adduced by the respondent was of the sale deed and as such, the sale deed is required to be discarded and the reference ought to have been dismissed. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. I have perused the evidence. The respondent entered the witness box. He stated that the land subject-matter of the sale deed at Exhibit AW.1/A was situated at a distance of about 1 km. from the acquired land. He stated that the nature of the said land was the same as the land acquired. He stated that the sale deed shows that the land was sold at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre. He stated that in fact the market value of the acquired land, on the relevant date was higher, but as the sale deed reflects market value at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. 4 metre, he had made a claim to the said amount. In examination-in- chief he stated that a primary school is at a distance of about 1 km. from the acquired land. Health centre is at the same distance from the acquired land. He stated that there was an electric line near the acquired land and about 5 to 6 months' prior to the acquisition, the work of laying water line had begun. He stated that a high school is situated at a distance of 2 kms. from the acquired land. He stated that there was a motorable road upto the house property of one Mr. Menezes, which was at a distance of about 100 metres from the acquired land. He gave description of the trees on the acquired land and their value. In the cross examination, the respondent admitted that the land was acquired for construction of a road. He stated that prior to the construction of the road by the Government, there was a bullock cart road which was not asphalted. He denied the correctness of the suggestion that motor vehicles were passing by the said cart road. He stated that the land situated on the either side of the acquired land was owned by him. He stated that when he had inspected the land subject-matter of the sale deed at exhibit AW.1/A in the year 1991, at that time there were coconut trees on the said land. He denied the correctness of the suggestion that a house was already constructed 5 on the said land. He denied the correctness of the suggestion that the market value of the acquired land was not Rs.100/- per sq. metre. In the cross examination, he reiterated that the market value of the lands in the vicinity of the acquired land was more than Rs.100/- per sq. metre. He denied the correctness of the suggestion that the land subject-matter of the said sale deed is better than the acquired land. 4. The respondent examined one Mr. Fernandes, Treasurer of Confraria of Batim. He deposed about the sale deed dated 7th October, 1985 in respect of an area of 975 sq. metres. The market value reflected from the said sale deed is approximately Rs.102/- per sq. metre. He stated that at the time of sale, the property was not a developed land and the same was uneven and not levelled. The entire cross examination is on the fact that the land subject matter of the said sale deed was put to auction and the sale deed has been executed in favour of the auction purchaser. Only on the ground that the sale deed is on the basis of an auction, it cannot be said that the value of the property reflected from the sale deed is not a market value. In a given case auction will fetch a price which may be less than the market price of the land subjected to auction sale. Merely because out of the 6 amount received from sale consideration, some amount is utilised for repairs of the church, one cannot jump to the conclusion that what was offered in the auction was less than the market value. As far as the distance between the land subject-matter of the sale deed and the acquired land, and the nature of the land is concerned, the evidence of the respondent has not been shaken in the cross examination. Therefore, the sale deed has been rightly accepted by the learned reference Court as the sale deed in respect of the land comparable to the acquired land. There is no much difference between the area of the acquired land and the land subject-matter of the sale instance. However, even after holding that the lands are comparable, 25 % of deduction has been made by the reference Court. It is true that there is a gap of 9 months from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act and the date of execution of the sale deed. Even the said aspect has been taken care of by making a deduction of 25 %. 5. In the matter of calculation of market value under Section 23 of the said Act, some guesswork is always inherent. After accepting that the market value of the acquired land can be determined on the basis of the sale deed at Exhibit AW.1/A, deduction of 25 % has been 7 made. The market value fixed under the impugned award is Rs.77/- per sq. metre. The amount is reasonable and proper and no interference is called for. Except for the enhancement in the market value of the land, no other enhancement has been granted by the reference Court. 6. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.S. OKA, J. ssm.