First appeal no. 165 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2006 1. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D.(Cell), Altinho, Panaji-Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division XVIII, (R), P.W.D., Ponda-Goa. ... Appellants versus Shri Namdev Ganesh Naik, Resident of House No.81, Sateribhat, Volvoi, Ponda, Goa 403 401. ... Respondent Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 28-2-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji, Goa in Land Acquisition Case No.36 of 2005. First appeal no. 165 of 2006 2 2. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the Appellants acquired land belonging to the Respondent surveyed under No. 14 sub-division 10 of Village Volvoi, Ponda Taluka for construction of a road from Volvoi to Sateribhat admeasuring an area of 300 sq. meters. The Land Acquisition Officer whilst passing an award under Section 11 of the said Act awarded a total sum of Rs.22,462/- for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.250/- per sq. meter for the land acquired. The Reference Court by Judgment and Award dated 28-2-2006 partly allowed the reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Guru Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the Appellants has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court did not apply its mind at all in assessing the compensation and came to an erroneous conclusion that the Respondent was entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter. Learned Government First appeal no. 165 of 2006 3 Advocate took me through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that there are no reasons given by the learned Judge in arriving at a conclusion that the Respondent is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre. Learned Government Advocate pointed out that the sale instance land is in a different village and as such the question of relying upon the sale instance for the purpose of assessing the compensation would not arise. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that this Court whilst disposing of First Appeal No.98 of 2006 by Judgment dated 9-3-2011 rejected the appeal preferred by the Appellants wherein the compensation in respect of land acquired therein for the same purpose in the same village surveyed under No.18/1 was fixed at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. meter. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that as such the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel for the Respondent has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel has pointed out that though the land acquired which was subject matter of the First Appeal No.98 of 2006 was acquired pursuant to the same notification and the sale deed relied upon by both parties, is the First appeal no. 165 of 2006 4 same, nevertheless the land of the Respondent herein is closer to the sale deed relied upon by this Court whilst assessing the compensation in the said case. Learned Counsel as such pointed out that the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre by the impugned Judgment cannot be said to be unjust. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal:- Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter? 6. On perusal of the records, I find that by Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.98 of 2006 dated 9-3-2011, the same sale instance sought to be relied upon by the Respondent in the present case was accepted to be the basis for determining the compensation for the land acquired. This Court after considering the same sale instance has accepted that the market value of the land acquired in the said case as Rs.50/- per square metre. Merely because the land is at a distance of 500 meters from the sale instance which is a developed plot, does not justify First appeal no. 165 of 2006 5 that any different compensation is to be awarded in the present case. The contention to the effect that the sale instance relied upon cannot be considered as the sale instance is in a different Village cannot be accepted especially when the distance is about 500 metres from the land acquired. This Court whilst passing the Judgment in First Appeal no. 98 of 2006 has found that there is no reason not to accept the market value fixed at Rs. 50/- per square metre by the Reference Court. I find no reason to award any different amount in respect of the land acquired in the present acquisition. There is no evidence on record to substantiate that the land acquired is superior to the land which was the subject matter of the said proceedings. Apart from that, the Land Acquisition Officer whilst passing the award under Section 11 of the said Act, had fixed the same compensation for both the portions of the land acquired and as such, I find that the market value of the land acquired is to be fixed at Rs.50/- per sq. meter for the reasons stated in the Judgment dated 09.03.2011. The impugned Judgment as such deserves to be modified accordingly. The points for determination are answered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : First appeal no. 165 of 2006 6 ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment is modified and the compensation is fixed at the rate of Rs.50/- per square meter for the land acquired. (iii) The rest of the award granting statutory benefits stands confirmed. (iv) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. RD