1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.285/2002 1. State of Goa through the Dy. Collector & S.D.O. Ponda Sub Division, Ponda, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Div. XVIII (Roads) PWD Ponda, Goa. .. Appellants Versus Shashikala Gaounkar Attorney of Shane Dessai r/o Shiroda Ponda, Goa, (since deceased) through legal heir Shri Ramaji Balkrishna Prabhu Gaonkar, r/o Askan Shiroda, Goa. .. Respondents. Mr. S. Bandodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 13 th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Bandodkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 10th December, 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.162/1998 by which the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('The Act' for short) has been partly allowed in favour of the respondent. 3. The Government of Goa vide Notification issued under Section 4(1) of The Act which was published in the official gazette on 6th March, 1990, acquired the lands of several persons for public purpose i.e. for construction of road from Tarvalem, Shiroda to Carmona Dongor. An area admeasuring 441 square metres of Survey Nos.585/1, 429/1, 429/2, 429/4, 585/6 and 585/6 situated at Shiroda, Ponda Taluka belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer made award dated 12th February, 1993 and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.15/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of The Act and 3 claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. 5. In Land Acquisition Case No.162/1998 before the Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji the respondent restricted their claim to Rs.60/- per square metre. The respondent examined two witnesses namely Ramaji Balkrishna Gaonkar-AW1 and AW2 Vidyadhar Yeshwant Verenkar. No evidence was led on behalf of the appellants. The respondent placed reliance upon one sale deed dated 7th July, 1989 - Exhibit AW1/B by which the plot of 507 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.60/- per square. 6. Placing reliance upon the said sale deed, the Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.42/- per square metre after deducting 30% towards the development cost. 7. Mr. Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants submitted that there is absolutely no evidence led by the respondent to establish the comparability of the acquired land with that of sale deed plot dated 7th July, 1989- Exhibit AW1/B. He further submitted 4 that the sale deed plot had advantage of two roads, one internal on the eastern side and Ponda-Shiroda road on the southern side and as such, even if the sale deed dated 7th July, 1989 was relied upon, further deduction ought to have been made by the Reference Court. According to Mr. Bandodkar, the sale deed plot was better located and as such, the Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation in favour of the respondent. 8. Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the Reference Court has rightly placed reliance upon the sale deed on 7th July, 1989 and deducted 30% towards development. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. In view of the rival submissions, the following point arises for determination in the appeal : “Whether the Reference Court was legally justified in enhancing the compensation in respect of the acquired land 5 from Rs.15/- to Rs.42/- per square metre? If not, to what compensation the respondent is entitled ?” 11. As stated above, the respondent examined two witnesses namely Ramaji Gaonkar-AW1 and Vidyadhar Verenkar-AW2 and placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 7th July, 1989-AW1/B. The evidence of both these witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent discloses that in the acquired land there were coconut trees and same was adjacent to the road going from Ponda to Shiroda; the sale deed plot was developed plot and there were about 50 coconut trees in the acquired land. The distance between the acquired land and the sale deed plot was about 100 metres. 12. In view of the above, it is evident that the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance upon the sale deed dated 7th July, 1989 for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land. However, admittedly, the sale deed plot was developed plot whereas in the acquired land there were coconut trees and the same was not developed land. Moreover, the sale deed plot had the advantage of having Ponda- Shiroda road abutting the said plot as well as one internal road on the eastern side. 6 Considering the advantages and disadvantages of the acquired land vis-a-vis the sale deed plot, I am of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to deduct 45 % from the consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 7th July, 1989. Accordingly, the market rate of the acquired land as on the date of publication of Section 4 Notification works out to Rs.33/- per square metre. Accordingly, the market rate of the acquired land as on the date of publication of Section 4 Notification is fixed at the rate of Rs.33/- per square metre. Needless to mention that the respondent is also entitled to all the statutory benefits under The Act. 13. The appeal stands partly allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA