1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.347 OF 2003 1. Deputy Collector (DEV) & Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji-Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer Works Div. XVII (PHE-N), P.W.D., G.P.D.I & II, 2nd Floor, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. …. Appellants V/s Shri Sanjay Rane, R/o. Sanquelim, Bicholim, Goa. …. Respondent Shri M. Salkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri S.G. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri S.G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 25/03/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No.41/1993. 2 3. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as 'the said Act', an area of 787 square metres from the property surveyed under no.106 (part) situated at Karapur was acquired for the construction of the 300 cubic metre ground level reservoir and a pump house at Karapur by the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing an award under Section 11 of the said Act, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per square metre for the land acquired. By the impugned judgment and award dated 25/03/2003, the Reference Court has partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.55/- per square metre besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri Salkar, learned Government Advocate has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.55/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further 3 pointed out that the Reference Court has failed to consider that the sale instances produced by the respondents were of developed plots and, as such, the deduction ought to have been made on account of the development charges. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has not even given appropriate reasons to arrive at a conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.55/- per square metre. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record and pointed out that the Reference Court was not justified to enhance the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer and, as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri S.G. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Reference Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the market value of the plot in the vicinity was ranging from Rs.44/- to Rs.55/- per square metre and has fixed the amount at Rs.55/- per square metre taking the average of such prices. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no infirmity committed by the Reference 4 Court in arriving at the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.55/- per square metre. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that there is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. 6. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel and on perusal of the impugned judgment, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.55/- per square metre. 7. In support of his claim for enhancement of compensation, the respondent has examined himself and he has stated that the acquired land is part of the property surveyed under no.106 situated at Karapur village and was touching the Mapsua Sanquelim road. He has further stated that there are residential houses located at a distance of 200 metres away from the acquired land. He has further pointed out that the acquired land had potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purposes as well as construction purposes as it was adjoining the highway. He has 5 further stated that the market value of the land in the locality was Rs.100/- per square metre. In support of his claim for enhancement he has produced a report along with the blueprint plan at Exhibit 21. He has produced two Sale Deeds one dated 29/07/1984 by which an area of 678 square metres was sold for a total price of Rs.25,000/- in respect of the land which is located at a distance of 800 metres to 1 km from the acquired land. He has also produced another certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 12/08/1985 by which an area of 406 square metres was sold for a total price of Rs.24,000/- which is at Exhibit 25. He has further stated that the Sale Deed land is at a distance of 800 metres to 1 km from the acquired land. He has further stated that the acquired land was a flat land. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the closest residential locality to the acquired land was at a distance of 100 metres towards the Bicholim and Sanquelim side. He has further admitted that the Sale Deed at Exhibit 22 is a sub-divided plot. He has further admitted that the Sale Deeds produced by him are in respect of sub-divided plots. 8. The learned Judge whilst passing the impugned judgment has found that the Sale Deeds at Exhibit 22,24 & 25 were part of 6 the same property and would go to show that the said sale instances were sub-divided plots. The learned Judge further found that the respondents were not in a position to substantiate their claim that the market value of the land at the relevant time was Rs.80/- per square metre, but however, the amount was found to be much higher than the one offered by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.15/- per square metre. The learned Judge has discarded the sale instances which are produced by the respondent which were post notifications, but however, the learned Judge has found that taking into consideration the sale transactions at Exhibit 24 and 25 which are prior to Section 4 notification the price mentioned therein was around Rs.37/- per square metre. The learned Judge has also found that considering the appreciation the amount would work out to Rs.44/- per square metre. The learned Judge further found that taking into consideration the other sale instance at exhibit 24 the rate of the acquired land would be around Rs.65/- per square metre. Making deduction for development charges on the average price the learned Judge has arrived at a figure of Rs.50/- per square metre and considering the land acquired was adjoining the highway has given an appreciation of 10% and fixed the amount at the rate of Rs.55/- per square metre. 7 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment and evidence on record, there is no dispute that the acquired land was adjoining the Bicholim Sanquelim road. As such, the land no doubt had potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purposes. The Reference Court whilst fixing the compensation has relied upon the said sale instances and has found that the market value of the land would range from Rs.44/- to Rs.65/- per square metre. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent reported in 2010 (13) SCC 710 in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai V/s. State of Goa & Anr. it has been held therein that in such cases the highest price in the Sale Deeds would have to be considered. As such, taking the price of the Sale Deed plot at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre in view of the said judgment of the Apex Court, I find that the said price would have to be the basis for fixing the market value of the land acquired. There is no dispute that the Sale Deed plots produced by the respondent were developed plots and, as such, considering that the land acquired was undeveloped, a deduction of 1/3rd on account of development charges would be appropriate. After such deduction, the amount would work out to Rs.44/- per square metre. The Reference Court has found that the land acquired was better 8 located than the land which was subject matter of the Sale Deeds. No doubt the land acquired was located adjoining the main road, and as such the land acquired would have better commercial value and demand. Considering the said aspect, the Reference Court has given an appreciation of 10% on such count. After such appreciation, the amount works out to Rs.50/- per square metre approximately. As such, the market value of the acquired land as on the relevant date is fixed at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre for the land acquired. The Reference Court was not justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.55/- per square metre without considering the amount of deductions to be effected on account of development charges and taking note of the fact that the sale instances were of the developed plots whereas the land acquired was of developed plots. 10. Considering the overall facts on record, I find that the market value of the acquired land is to be fixed at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre. To that extent, the impugned judgment deserves to be modified. The point for determination is answered accordingly. Shri Salkar, learned Government Advocate has pointed out that as per the records, there is a reference under 9 Section 30 of the said Act which is pending adjudication before the competent Court. As such, the compensation awarded in this proceedings shall be disbursed only after and in accordance with the final adjudication of the reference proceedings under Section 30 of the said Act. 11. In view of the above, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 25/03/2003 is modified and the compensation for the land acquired is fixed at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre. (iii) The remaining part of the award granting statutory benefits is confirmed. (iv) The amount shall be disbursed subject to final adjudication of the proceedings under Section 30 of the said Act. (v) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-