- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2004. Communidade of Marcaim, Madkai, Goa, through its Attorney Shri Vaman P. Kamat, residing at Malwada, Madkai, Goa. .......... Appellant. Versus 1 Deputy Collector & S.D.O., Ponda Sub- Division, Office of the Dy. Collector & SDO, Ponda Goa. 2 Director of Health Service, Government of Goa, Panaji Goa. .......... Respondents. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Sapana Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM:-F. M. REIS, J. DATE:-3 rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 3rd November, 2003 passed by the learned Additional - 2 - District Judge, Panaji, in the Land Acquisition case no.37/1998. 2. By notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), in the official Gazette dated 6th February, 1992, an area of 10,000 square metres belonging to the Appellant herein was intended to acquire by the Respondents for the construction of the Primary Health Centre at Madkai from the property surveyed under no. 374(part) of village Madkai. 3. By an Award under section 11 of the said Act, dated 30th November, 1993, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.6/- per square metre. 4. Being dissatisfied with the said Award, the Appellant preferred a reference for enhancement of the compensation under section 18 of the Act and claimed a compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre for the land acquired. 5. By Judgment and Award dated 3rd November, 2003, the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji has fixed the market value of - 3 - the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 15/- per square metre. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the land acquired in the present case is much superior than the land which was subject matter of the land acquisition case no. 112/1994. He further submitted that the area involved in the said acquisition was to the tune of 348,025 square metres while in the present case land acquired only admeasures 10,000square metres. He further pointed out that in the said land acquisition case the Reference Court has awarded sum of Rs. 15/- per square metre. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the land acquired in the present case is superior the Reference Court ought to have awarded a minimum sum of Rs. 20/- per square metre for the land acquired. Learned Counsel has taken me through the contents of the judgment and pointed out that there is evidence on record to disclose that in the adjoining acquired land there was already development which had taken place for the purpose of industrial estate and residential house. He further submitted that the Reference Court has not considered the potentiality of the land acquired on the basis of said material on record - 4 - and, as such, erroneously came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of section 4 notification was Rs. 15/- per square metre. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that the land which was subject matter of the said land acquisition case was sloppy land whereas land acquired in the present proceedings was on a plateau and bharad land which was suitable for non agricultural purpose. He has also submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and Appellant be awarded compensation at least at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square metre. 7. On the other hand Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents has supported the impugned judgment. She pointed out that the Reference Court has minutely examined the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of section 4 notification was Rs.15/- per square metre. She further submitted that on perusal of the evidence on record there can be no dispute that the land acquired was similar to the land acquired in land acquisition case no. 112/1994. Learned Counsel has further submitted that in fact the Division Bench of this Court disposed of First Appeal no. 103/2003 has in fact reduced the market value of the land acquired - 5 - from 15/- per square metre to Rs. 12/- per square metre in respect of an Award passed in said Land Acquisition Case no. 112/1994. She as such submitted that in view of the determination of the market value of the land acquired in the said case, there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in determining the market value of the land acquired in the present case. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no ground for interference in the impugned judgment and Award. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arise in the present appeal:- POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per square metre of the land acquired? 9. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award, I find that the Reference Court while determining the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 15/- has considered that the land which was acquired pursuant to the notification dated 27th January, 1992 admeasures an - 6 - area of 3,48,025/- square metres was also situated at Makai plateau just like the acquired land. The learned Judge has further come to the conclusion that the compensation in respect of the said land acquired was enhanced to Rs.15/- per square metre, though the land acquired in the said case was very vast as compared to the land acquired in the present case. Learned Judge also considered the Award of Land Acquisition Officer at Exh.AW1/A whereby vide notification dated 7th May, 1992 land admeasuring an area of 4000sq.mts from the property surveyed under no. 391/part situated on the same Madkai plateau just like acquired land was acquired and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.15/-per square metre. The learned Judge found that the land which was subject matter of the said case was similar to the acquired land and as such the Appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 15/- per square metre. The Division Bench of this Court in First appeal no. 103/2003 while disposing the appeal preferred by the Acquiring Body has fixed the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre in respect of land which was subject matter of the notification dated 27th January, 1992. The Division Bench of this Court has given a deduction to 20% on account of vastness of land vis-a-vis the land which was subject matter of the Award at Exh.AW1/A wherein land involved was - 7 - admeasuring 4000 square metres only. The evidence on record demonstrates that the only difference with regards to the land acquired and the land which was subject matter of the said acquisition is that the said land was slightly sloppy. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the land acquired was superior to the land which was subject matter of the land acquired in the First Appeal no. 103/2003. Apart from that even assuming the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is to be accepted, any appreciation on such ground would be taken care of as the amount has been reduced by the Division Bench from Rs.15/- to Rs.12/- per square metre. I find that in view of the said judgment of the Division Bench, wherein the amount has been fixed at Rs. 12/- per square metre for a land admeasuring 3,48,025 square metres there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court while determining the market value in the present case at the rate of Rs.15/- per square meter. Point for determination is answered accordingly. There is no merits in the appeal. Consequently appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. vn*