1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.24 OF 2006 The Managing Director, Goa IDC, having office at Plot No.13A-2, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa. …. Appellant V/s Shri Ceasar Soares, Resident of House No.484, Devati, Loutolim, Salcete-Goa. …. Respondent Shri M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 24th JUNE, 2011 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 4/11/2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.37/2004. 2. By a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as "the said Act") dated 13/11/2000 and published in the Official Gazette dated 23/11/2000 land admeasuring an area of 2550 square metres from the property surveyed under no.161/2 of Loutolim village was 2 acquired for the expansion of Industrial Estate, Phase IV at Verna and Loutolim village of Salcete Taluka. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 29/09/2003, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre. 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.200/- per square metre for the land acquired. By the impugned judgment and award dated 4/11/2005, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.70/- per square metre and after deducting the amount paid pursuant to the award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Reference Court directed that the respondent was entitled to an excess amount of Rs.50/- per square metre for the land acquired besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri M.S. Sonak, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the land acquired is undeveloped having no potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purposes. The learned Counsel further 3 submitted that the land acquired was admittedly agricultural land and had no potentiality of being used for non agricultural purposes. The learned Counsel further submitted that though the industrial estate was adjoining to the land acquired, nevertheless considering that there was no development in the portion of the land acquired, the question of fixing the compensation on the basis that the land is located in the industrial area would not arise. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence of the parties and pointed out that the respondent has failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his contention that they are entitled for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale instances produced by the respondent is not at all comparable to the land acquired and, as such, there was no material for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation and, consequently, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and further submitted that the deductions effected by the Reference Court are excessive and in fact the respondent ought to have filed cross-objection challenging 4 the said deductions. He further pointed out that the market value of the acquired land in the vicinity of the land acquired was much higher than the one awarded by the Reference Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering that the acquired land was located in the vicinity of the industrial estate, there was high demand for such land and, as such, the amount awarded by the Reference Court is on the lower side. The learned Counsel has further taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the total deduction effected by the Reference Court is 90% and the question of any further deduction, as contended by the appellant is totally misplaced. Considering that the respondent has not filed any cross-objection, the learned Counsel submitted that there is no question of interfering in the impugned judgment and, as such, the appeal has to be rejected. 5. On perusal of the record and considering the submissions of learned Counsel, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified to direct the payment of an excess amount of Rs.50/- per 5 square metre. 6. In support of their claim for enhancement, the respondent has examined himself and has stated in his affidavit that the land acquired in the present proceedings is surrounded on all four sides by rubble stone wall and that the rate awarded by the appellant is far less and not correct market value at the relevant time. He has further stated that the land acquired is situated in the property surveyed under no.161/2 and is of bharad type and is located in an export processing zone. He has further stated that the land is slightly culminated and has very high building potentiality and is free from encumbrance. He has further stated that the land acquired is about 200 metres from the Verna Rassaim link road which is on the northern side of the said plot and about 1.5 kms away from the National Highway No.17. He has further stated that the land acquired is located in the close vicinity of the Verna Industrial estate. He has produced the valuation report of Shri Mahendra S. Kakule in support of his claim for enhancement. He has also referred to a Sale Deed dated 10/03/1997 which is in respect of the land which is located at a distance of 1 km from the acquired land. He has further stated that the land admeasuring 400 6 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.500/- per square metre. He has further stated that the nature and the type of the land acquired and the sale deed plot are almost the same. He has also produced some sale deeds executed between the appellant and M/s Hindustan Coca Bottling Southwest Private Ltd. Different other lease deeds were also produced besides the valuation report prepared by the Valuer, who had inspected the site and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.187.50 per square metre. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the land around the acquired land was hilly land and was sloppy. He has further admitted that the land acquired was located on the small hillock and it was undeveloped. He has further admitted that for the purpose of development the land acquired would require cutting. He has also admitted that there was no direct access to the acquired land. He has also admitted that the facilities available to the Verna Industrial Estate were not available to the acquired land. He has also admitted that the distance from the National Highway is about 2 kms from th eastern side. He has also admitted that there was a house existing in the Sale Deed plot. As far as the lease deeds are concerned he has admitted that the same were given to the industries on lease for setting up industrial units. The next witness examined is Shri 7 Mahendra S. Kakule, who is a registered valuer and who has submitted his report. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has done the valuation on the assumption that the property is land locked. He has also admitted so in his valuation report. He has also admitted that one could not reach the present acquired land with a vehicle at the time of his inspection. He has also admitted that the land acquired is on an uneven surface and the land could not be independently developed. He has admitted that the land was shown as export processing zone in the regional plan. 7. The learned Judge while passing the impugned judgment has appreciated the evidence on record and has found that the deed of lease could not be relied upon for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land, considering that the premium paid depends upon the expenditure incurred by the IDC. The learned Judge also discarded the valuation report as it was based on the said deeds. The learned Judge found that the sale deed dated 10/03/1997 which is at Exhibit 16 is in respect of plot 'C' admeasuring an area of 406 square metres which was bounded towards the east by another plot 'B', on the north by 6 metres wide road, on the west by the remaining properties of the vendor and on 8 the south by the properties of Sebastiano Lobo. The learned Judge further found that the plot 'B' was adjoining PWD road which was lying on the east of plot. The learned Judge has considered the said sale instances as the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land after making deductions on account of dissimilarities. The learned Judge has deducted 15% considering that the Sale Deed plot was smaller and the land acquired was much bigger of about 2550 per square metres. A further deduction of 15% was made due to the fact that the said plot was having an access and was close to the PWD road whereas the acquired land was a landlocked property with no clear motorable access. A deduction of 15% was also effected on the ground that the Sale Deed plot was having a house therein and was in a residential locality, which was not the case with regard to the acquired land. The learned Judge has deducted another 15% as the Sale Deed plot was levelled land and the land acquired was an uneven land. Considering that the sale Deed plot was a developed plot and the land acquired was undeveloped, the Reference Court has further deducted 30% and an aggregate deduction of 90% has been made to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.70/- per square metre. 9 8. Considering the material on record there is no doubt the deductions which have been effected appear to be excessive, but however, considering that the respondent has not filed any cross- objection, I find that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.70/- per square metre cannot be said to be excessive or unjust. The market value has been fixed on the basis of a comparable sale instance after effecting deductions on account of dissimilarities, which have been found on the basis of the evidence on record. The Sale Deed plot is admittedly a developed plot while the land acquired is an undeveloped piece of land. In the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2010 (1) SCC 444 in the case of Subh Ram & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr., it has been held that when a small developed plot is considered as the basis for fixing the market value of a large piece of land which is undeveloped, the deductions on account of development charges can range between 25% to 75%, considering the facts of each case. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Reference Court has in fact deducted nearly 90% on account of the dissimilarities as well as the development charges. I find no reason to interfere in the impugned 10 judgment fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.70/- per square metre. The learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to show from the evidence on record that the said sale deed plot was not a comparable sale instance so as to form the basis to fix the market value of the acquired land. 9. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding First Appeal No.300/2003 in respect of an acquisition pursuant to a notification dated 23/03/1990 has fixed the compensation for the acquired land in respect of the property surveyed under no.40/part of Verna Village at the rate of Rs.40/- per square metre besides another portion of the same survey number at the rate of Rs.24/- per square metre. The said acquisitions were also for the same industrial estate and situated not far from the acquired land. Considering the amount fixed therein, I find that the amount fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.70/- per square metre cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable as the notification in the present case was issued on 23/11/2000. As such, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 11 10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-