1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.249/2006 1. Deputy Collector (LA) South-Goa, Margao-Goa 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (Roads), Public Works Department, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. .. Appellants Versus 1. M/s. Tonia Distilleries, Raia, Salcete-Goa .. Respondent. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 22 nd December, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 22nd March, 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.96/2003 partly allowing the reference 2 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('The Act' for short). 3. By Notification issued under Section 4 of The Act dated 15th December, 1995 which was published in the official gazette on 20th May, 1996, the Government of Goa expressed its intention to acquire the land for public purpose namely for widening and black topping of the road from Arlem to Borim of village Raia, Camurlim, Loutolim in Salcete Taluka. An area of 165 square metres of plot bearing no.251/1 belonging to the respondent at village Raia was part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per square metre. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 30th November, 1999 and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.22/- per square metre. 4. Dissatisfied with the award, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of The Act and claimed Rs.400/- per square metre. In Land Acquisition Case No.96/2003, the respondent examined Aleixo Sequeira-AW1 and produced sale deeds at exhibits 18 to 22. He also produced power of attorney exhibit 17 as well as valuation 3 report by Civil Engineer Pascoal Noronha, who was examined as AW2. 5. By the said sale deeds, the respondent had purchased undivided shares in the property bearing survey No.251/1 from the co-owners. The sale deeds are dated 19th November, 1993 -exhibit 18, 13th April, 1994-exhibit 19, 6th May, 1994-exhibit 20, 5th July, 1994-exhibit 21 and 16th August, 1994-exhibit 22. By the first four sale deeds, the co- owners sold 1/8th share of the property at Rs.20,000/-, 40,000/- 40,000/- and 50,000/- respectively and by sale deed dated 16th August, 1994 half undivided share in the property was sold for a consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- 6. The Reference Court relied upon the sale deed dated 19th November, 1993 by which 1/8th share in the property was sold at Rs.20,000/- and held that the rate per square metre would come to Rs.139/- per square metre. Thereafter, the Reference Court deducted 50 % on the ground that the acquired land was coming within the setback and road widening area and as such no construction was permissible over the said land and after arriving at the rate of Rs.68/- per square metre as on November, 1993, the 4 Reference Court considered rise of 10 % per square metre and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.80/- per square metre. 7. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that since the sale deeds were in respect of shares in the property bearing Survey No.251/1, the Reference Court could not have considered the same and the Reference Court, in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the price of the comparable land, could not have enhanced the compensation from Rs.22/- to Rs.80/- per square metre. Mr. Shirodkar further submitted that in the absence of any sale deed having been produced by respondent of comparable plot, the Reference Court could not have enhanced the compensation in respect of the acquired land. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and perused the record. 9. As stated above, none appears on behalf of the respondent, though served. 5 10. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, the following point arises for determination in the appeal : “Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.80/- per square metre as on the date of publication of Section 4 Notification? If not, what was the market rate of the acquired land as on the date of publication of Section 4 Notification ?” 11. As stated above, the Reference Court relied upon the sale deed dated 19th November, 1993 by which 1/8th share in the property bearing Survey No.251/1, a part of which was acquired, was sold at Rs.20,000/-. The record discloses that thereafter, the respondent purchased remaining shares in the same property from the co-owners at higher rates and in terms of sale deed dated 16th August, 1994, the respondent had purchased the entire property and had become owner of the entire property bearing Survey No.251/1. Thus, the record clearly discloses that the property bearing Survey No.251/1 was purchased by the respondent from the different co-owners by executing different sale deeds in respect of their shares at the rates ranging from Rs.139/- to 6 278/- per square metre. Therefore, the market rate fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.80/- per square metre as on the date of publication of Section 4 Notification i.e. on 20th May, 1996, cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference in appeal. No doubt the respondent had purchased shares of the property bearing Survey No.251/1 from different co- owners by executing different sale deeds. However, this fact by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the consideration mentioned in the sale deed did not reflect the market rate of the property, which was sold. Therefore, looking from any angle, the market rate fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.80/- per square metre cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference in appeal. 12. In view of the above, I do not find merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA