1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2000. 1. Deputy Collector ( Land Acquisition), Margao – Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XV (NH), Public Works Department, Ponda – Goa. ...Appellants. V e r s u s Shri Mahalsa Devasthan, Mardol, Ponda – Goa. ...Respondents. Mr. H. R. Bharne, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: SHRI A. H. JOSHI, J DATE: 28th JULY, 2009. ORDER 1. This is first appeal by State Government. 2. The notice under Section was published on 18.9.1986. 700 sq. mts. of land from Survey No.292/2 and Survey No.294/2 was acquired. Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation @ Rs.40/- per sq. meters. 3. Land owner has relied on a sale deed dated 19.6.1986 pertaining to 2 Survey No.360/20 having 150 sq. mts. of developed plots sold for Rs.145/- per sq. mts. 4. Land owner has relied upon the proximity. Claimant's witnesses supported price for acquired land to be Rs.140/- per sq. mts. 5. Distance between these two lands is only 300 meters. 6. Considering totality of facts the reference Court has recorded findings as follows:- “ Considering that the price of the plot sold is Rs. 145/- per square meter by deducing 40% as development charges the price of the undeveloped plot will be Rs. 87/- per square meter. Taking into consideration that it has been brought in the evidence of A. W. 1 that the acquired land was not on the same level of the road and there were deep strips of the height of 1 meter and the evidence of A. W. 2 and A. W. 3 was well as R. W. 1 Ramchandra Ramkrishna Kakodkar, states that Survey No. 240/2 is a slopy land, deductions of 25% will have to be made and as such the rate of compensation to the acquired land is fixed at Rs. 66 per sq. meter and the issue no.1 is answered accordingly”. (Quoted marked portion from page NO.86) 7. The award for Rs.66/- per square meter is challenged by the State Government. Perusal of grounds raised in memo of appeal and orally argued are too general except past of ground no.(V). 8. Ground No.V reads as follows:- “(V) The Ld. Addl. District Judge from the evidence itself 3 ought to have held that the acquired land did not have building potentiality and he could not have enhanced the market rate on the basis of the building potentiality only considering and relying upon the sale deed, Exbt. AW-1/B, which ought not to have been taken and there was absolutely no comparison whatsoever between the said sale deed and the acquired land as would be found from the evidence, which clearly indicated that the land under the sale deed was a developed plot/land having building potentiality whereas the acquired land did not have any building potentiality as also it was a tenanted land and not only for the fact that it was a slopy land but also was adjacent to the National Highway wherein no construction is permissible within the set back of the National Highway. None of the factors were taken into consideration by the Ld. Additional District Judge”. (Quoted marked portion from page D & E) 9. Only aspect which is emphasised is about proximity to highway and hence want of potential for building purpose, which portion is underlined in the ground quoted in the foregoing paragraph. 10. Perusal of evidence of PW2, the seller of neighbouring plot, examined to prove sale instance, it is seen that this witness have proved the sale deed of land which is comparable. PW3, the valuer has proved that acquired land is in the vicinity of village Mardol having all facilities, and also proved that acquired land is similarly situated to the land subject matter of comparable sale instance. 11. Based on this evidence Reference Court has recorded a finding that claimant's evidence can be relied upon, yet reduced the proved market price of Rs.145/- and granted only Rs.66/- i.e. around 45% of proved price. 4 12. This reduction too has been done without any justifying evidence being brought forward by the state. 13. This court is therefore satisfied that sole ground made out in appeal by the Government has no foundation. 14. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs. A. H. JOSHI., J. ah/-