-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 290 OF 2006 1. The Deputy Collector (L.A.) Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XXI PHE, P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Shri Antonio Almeida 2. Shri Jose Almeida 3. Shri Francisco Almeida 4. Shri Manuel Almeida, All r/o. Marchon Bldg., 1st Floor, Margao-Goa. (Above are the registered addresses of the Parties) …... Respondents Mr. M. Salkar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Ms. K. Divgikar, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 22 nd November, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri Salkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Appellant and Shri M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents. -2- 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court in the Land Acquisition Case no.91/2000, whereby a reference preferred by the Respondents was partly allowed and the compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.88/- per square metre for the land acquired. 3. Pursuant to a Notification dated 01.02.1991 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as the said Act, land was acquired for construction of underground drainage scheme in Margao Town, Central Zone. Amongst the land which were acquired, an area of 640 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 30/8 (part) belonging to the Respondents was also intended to be acquired. By the Award dated 11.05.1994, the Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.4/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondents preferred a revision under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed an amount of Rs.100/- per square metre. By the Judgment and Award dated 26.06.2006, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.88/- per square metre. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal. 5. Shri Salkar, learned Addl. Government Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has assailed the impugned Judgment on the ground that the Reference Court has erroneously fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.88/- per square -3- metre. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the land acquired had no potentiality for use of any purpose and, as such, the compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.88/- per square metre, is not justified. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the instances relied upon by the Reference Court to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs. 88/- per square metre, are not comparable with the land acquired. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgment as well as evidence on record and pointed out that the Respondents have failed to discharge the burden to establish that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the instances referred to by the Reference Court and pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously relied upon the said instances and, as such, has arbitrarily fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.88/- per square metre. Learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Shri M. B. D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the land acquired is located in Margao City which is a commercial city in the State of Goa and pointed out that such land had high potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purpose. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the instances and has fixed the compensation for the land acquired. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court has fixed the compensation on the basis of a Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court wherein compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.66/- per square metre which was acquired -4- two years prior to the Notification in the present case. The learned Counsel further pointed out that same circumstances as in the earlier acquisition were relevamnt with the acquisition in the present case and, as such, the said Judgment was very much material for fixing the compensation in the present case. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgment as well as the material on record and pointed out that there is no reason for any interference in the impugned Judgment and Award and, as such, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal : POINT FOR DETERMINATION (1) Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.88/- ? 8. In the present case, the land acquired was surveyed in the Survey Records under Chalta 8 of P.T. Sheet no. 30. In support of their claim for enhancement, the Respondents have examined Shri Jose Almeida, as Aw.1. He has stated in his deposition that the land acquired was part of the property bearing Chalta no. 8 of P.T. Sheet no. 30 which was a part of the bigger property surveyed under Chalta no. 1 of P. T. Sheet no. 30. He has further stated that all the amenities such as electricity, water, telephone was available in the land acquired. He has further stated that there was a Chapel and a commercial establishment, shops, etc., including a hospital in the close neighborhood of the acquired land. He has further stated that the Respondents have developed the property bearing -5- Chalta no. 1 P. T. Sheet no. 30 pursuant to the permissions of the said Authorities in the year 1976. He has further stated that by an Award dated 23.11.1990, a part of the developed property bearing Chalta no. 1 of P. T. Sheet no. 30, which is located on the left hand side of the internal road, came to be acquired. He has further stated that the District Court in Land Acquisition Case no. 115/1992, by Judgment and Award dated 04.12.1999, enhanced the compensation for the land acquired to Rs. 45/- per square metre. In the Appeal preferred before this Court, he has stated that the compensation for the land acquired was fixed as Rs.66/- per square metre. Considering that the land acquired was part of a road kept within the developed plot, the Respondent was awarded compensation of 20 percent on the market value of developed plot and fixed the sum of Rs.66/- per square metre. He has further stated that the Appellants preferred an Appeal before the Apex Court which came to be dismissed by Order dated 23.06.2004. He has further stated that the land acquired forming part of Chalta no. 8 of P. T. Sheet no. 30, was the part of the property surveyed under Chalta no. 1 of P. T. Sheet no. 30. He has further stated that the present land acquired is also part of the land kept as a road between developed plots. He has further stated that considering the price of developed plots to be a sum of Rs.330/- after giving an escallation of ten percent for the time gap between Section 4 of the Notification and the Sale Deed, the sum works up to Rs.500/- for the year 1991 and after awarding 20 percent of the said value as the acquired land is part of the developed road in view of the Judgment of this Court, the market value of the acquired land is Rs.100/- per square metre. The said witness has been duly cross examined. But the fact that the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, was of the same land is not disputed by the Respondent. The Reference Court after considering the material on record has -6- considered the Judgment dated 29..09.1987 passed by the Inquiry Officer which is at exhibit 21 and also the Judgment dated 31.12.1987 passed by the Inquiry Officer at exhibit 22, creating Chalta no. 8 of P. T. Sheet no. 30, which is the subject matter of the acquisition in the present proceedings found that the land was part of the said property Chalta no. 1 of P. T. Sheet no. 30. The findings of the Reference Court cannot be said to be erroneous in view of the said material on record. The Reference Court thereafter considered the Judgment passed by this Court, wherein the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.66/- per square metre where the Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 29.01.1987. The Reference Court taking note of the fact that both the lands are in respect of the same property, has found that the Judgment passed by this Court which is at exhibit 24, can form the basis to fix the compensation for the land acquired. The Reference Court on the basis of the material on record, has given an escallation of 7.5 % from 22.01.1987 to 26.04.1991 which is the date of the Notification in the present case and fixed the market rate of Rs. 88/- per square metre at the relevant time. 9. Considering the said evidence on record and taking note of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.66/- per square metres, in similar circumstances, I find that the Judgment of the Division Bench at exhibit 24, can form the basis for fixing the compensation for the land acquired. It is not in dispute that the material on record suggest that the land acquired is part of a bigger property surveyed under chalta no. 1 of P. T. Sheet no. 30, which was the subject matter in the earlier case. The reasons given by the Reference Court to grant an escallation of 7.5 percent cannot be said to be erroneous. The Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record -7- whilst fixing the said rate of escallation. As such, I find that the Reference Court has rightly assessed the evidence on record and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.88/- per square metre for the land acquired. The land acquired in the present case and the land which was subject matter of the previous acquisition are at a close distance besides having the same features as stated herein above. Considering that the comparability of the land acquired in the present case and the land which is the subject matter of the previous acquisition, has not been disputed, I find that the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired on the basis of the previous Award and determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.88/- per square metre. The Reference Court has applied the well settled principles of law whilst fixing the compensation for the land acquired. Hence, I find no case is made out for any interference in the impugned Judgment fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.88/- per square metre. The point for determination is answered in accordingly. 10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above Appeal which stands accordingly dismissed with no Order as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*