:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2004 1. Dy. Collector ( L.A.) Margao Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division, VI, (R-S), PWD, Fatorda, Margao. ... Appellants V e r s u s Smt. Lilia D'Cruz, R/o House No. 880/1, Loutulim, P.O. Loutulim, Salcete Goa. ... Respondent Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. M. B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : The Appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 30th August, 2003 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 63/2001. The Appellants had acquired a portion of the land admeasuring 735 square metres from survey No.70/1 of Village Calata for the purpose of construction of Dongorim, Majorda, Dongorim Kucha Gabriel Church road, from Our Lady Church to Tolleaband Guirim road and Godinho road in Village :2: Panchayat Majorda of Salcete Taluka, pursuant to a notification published in the Official Gazette on 9th April, 1992, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ( hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The Land Acquisition Officer by an award dated 6th February, 1995 under Section 11 of the said Act awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per square metre. 2. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the Respondent preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed a compensation of Rs.250/- per square metre for the land acquired. Apart from the said amount, the Respondent also sought a compensation of Rs.10,000/- as the land would be subjected to trespass . 3. By judgment and award dated 30th August, 2003 the learned District Judge has fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.45/- per square metre. The remaining claim of the Respondent for the said sum of Rs.10,000/- came to be rejected. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Appellants preferred the present Appeal. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs.45/- per square metre. He further :3: submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon an award dated 30th April, 1992 to arrive at the market value of Rs.45/- per square metre without giving any reason as to how Rs.26/- per square metre awarded therein has been enhanced to Rs.45/- per square metre. He further submitted that even considering the escalation as is well settled, the Reference Court has not justified to enhance the market rate from Rs.26/- per square metre to Rs.45/- per square metre. As such he submitted that the Reference Court was not justified to enhance the compensation to Rs.45/- per square metre. 5. On the other hand, Mr. M. B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Reference Court has not relied only on the said award to arrive at the market value of the land acquired at Rs.45/- per square metre. He further submitted that the Reference Court has in fact relied upon a sale instance which is at Exhibit 20 wherein a developed plot was sold in the close vicinity at the rate of Rs.110/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering the deduction which has been effected on account of development charges, the market value determined by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.45/- per square metre is just and proper. He further submitted that there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the impugned judgment and as such the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. :4: 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and Respondent and on perusal of the records, the following point arises for determination in the present Appeal : POINT FOR DETERMINATION “Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.45/- per square metre ? 7. On perusal of evidence on records, I find that the Respondent has examined AW1 who has stated that the land acquired is fit for urban construction and the same lies within the settlement zone and it was accessible by a footpath which was proceeding to the main public road at a distance of 10 metres on the southern side. She has further stated that all the amenities such as electricity, water etc., are available at loco and that a Chapel of St. Rock at Calata is at a distance of one and half kilometer from the acquired land. There are also High Schools at Nuvem and Majorda which are at a distance of two kilometres and that the acquired land is located on the extreme eastern boundary of the property surveyed under survey no.70/1. In support of her claim filed for enhancement, she has produced a sale deed dated 23rd January, 1990 which forms part of the survey No.173/3 of village Nuvem wherein total land admeasuring 1278 square metres was sold to different persons which included mundkarial area. The price mentioned therein was Rs.60/- per square metre for mundkarial area and a sum of Rs.110/- per square metre :5: for the remaining open land. She has further stated that the land acquired and the land subject matter of the said sale deed is identical in nature even though the acquired land is in village Calata and the said sale deed land is situated in village Nuvem within 200 metres away from each other. She has also relied upon an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 30th April, 1992 and the compensation fixed therein was at the rate of Rs.26/- per square metre. She has further stated that the land subject matter of the said award was coming under cultivated zone. In the cross examination, she has admitted that the mundcar Francisco Braganza had his original mundcarial house in survey No.70/1 and the said original house is shown in the survey plan at Exhibit 18 under nos. 2 and 3. She has further stated that she has a farm house and a store room in the said property. She has further stated that the land which was the subject matter of the sale instance at Exhibit 20 is a part of the bigger property and that the said bigger property was partitioned as per the decree of the Court. The Reference Court after examining the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the sale instance at Exhibit 20 is comparable with the land acquired and after effecting necessary deductions has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.45/- per square metre. The learned Government Advocate is not justified to contend that the Reference Court has relied only upon an award at Exhibit 21 to come to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired is at the rate of Rs.45/ per square metre. In fact the Reference Court has also :6: considered the said award to come to the conclusion that the amount fixed at the rate of Rs.45/- per square metre after effecting deductions on the basis of the sale deed at Exhibit 20 was just and proper. 8. The Reference Court while effecting deductions has deducted 40% as the acquired land is undeveloped. The Reference Court has further deduced 30% on account of the fact that the acquired land did not have a motorable access. On perusal of the said sale instance at Exhbit 20, I find that the sale deed discloses that the land was accessible from the public road by a 3 metres wide road which is not in the case of the acquired land. As such the Reference Court effected deduction of 30% on account of such dissimilarity. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in (2010) 1 SCC 444 in the case of Subh Ram v. State of Haryana has held at para 15 as under : “15. Thus, if the valuation of a large extent of agricultural or undeveloped land is to be based on the sale price of a small developed plot in a private layout, then the standard deductions should be one-third (for roads, etc.) plus one- third (for expenditure of development), in all two-thirds (or 67%), as “development cost” from the value of small plot. The percentage of deduction may however vary between 20% to 75% depending on several circumstances (see Lal Chand v. Union of India, paras 8 and 9 for illustrations of such circumstances).” :7: 9. Considering the said judgment of the Apex Court, I find that the deductions effected by the Reference Court are just and proper and there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired is at the rate of Rs.45/- per square metre. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Appeal and as such the Appeal stands dismissed. F. M. REIS, J. at*