- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. First Appeal NO. 116 OF 2004. 1 State of Goa, through the Dy. Collector(Rev.) & L.A.O. Margao. 2 The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI, Fatorda, Margao. .......... Appellants. Versus Shri Joao Nascimento Escolastico Araujo, aged 57 years, residing at Fatorda, Margao. .......... Respondent. Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM:-F. M. REIS, J. DATE:-27th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 11th March, 2002 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in the Land Acquisition case no.500/1995 whereby the reference filed by the Respondent was partly allowed. - 2 - 2. The land belonging to the Respondent admeasuring an area of 410 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 70 at village Sernabatim was acquired for the purpose of constructing and black topping of Betalbatim-Colva road by notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') published in the Official Gazette dated 27th February, 1992. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award under section 11 of the said Act and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said Award the Respondent preferred a reference for enhancement of the compensation under section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. 3. By the impugned Judgment and Award dated 11th March, 2002, the Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.185/- per square metre. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. - 3 - 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. S. Mordekar, assailed the impugned Judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected itself in determining the market value of the land acquired. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show comparability between the sale instance produced by the Respondent vis-a-vis the acquired land. Learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired was not suitable for being used for construction purpose. It is further submitted that the Reference Court has not applied the well settled principle for determining the market value of the acquired land and erroneously awarded compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 185/- per square meter. Learned Counsel further submits that the Reference Court has not made the requisite deduction on account of development charges while determining the market value of the land acquired. 6. On the other hand learned counsel Mr. R. G. Ramani, appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the Reference Court has correctly determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 185/- as on date - 4 - of section 4 notification. He further submitted that one of the sale instances produced by the Respondent is of the year 1988 which is part and parcel of the same property surveyed under no.70 whereby the Respondent has sold a portion of his property admeasuring 281square metres for a price of Rs. 45,000/- which works out to Rs.197/- per square meter. He further submits that the land of the Respondent had potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose and as such the Reference Court has rightly determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 185/per square metre. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondent and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arise in the present appeal:- POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.185/- per square metre? 8. In support of his claim the Respondent has examined - 5 - himself. He has stated in his deposition that he had sold two plots of the said property in the year 1987 and 1988 at the rate of Rs.180/- and Rs. 193/- per square metre respectively. The plots which he sold are at a distance of about 100 metres from the acquired land. He has further stated that the nature of the acquired land and the said plots are similar. The sale deed dated 30.6.1988 is at Exh. AW/A. The other sale deed of the year 1987 is at Exh. AW1/B. He has also produced valuation report in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation. He further states that the acquired land is at a distance of 300 metres away from the Senarbatim beach and 5 kilometres from Margao City. The land has facilities such as telephone, water, electricity, shops which are at a distance of 300 metres from the acquired land. He also stated that transport facility was available close to the acquired land and the bus stop was situated at a distance of 100 metres from the acquired land. He has further stated that there were other acquisition wherein the Land Acquisition Officer had offered price of Rs.35/- per square metre in the year 1989. He has further stated that the acquired land is situated in settlement zone. He has further stated that the plot of sale deed dated 30.6.1988 is from the same survey number i.e survey no.70. AW2 Vikas Dessai has been examined as an expert. He has filed the report which is at Exh. - 6 - AW2/A. He states that the acquired land falls in settlement zone and there are 14 houses in the said survey number. He had valued the land at Rs. 250/- per square metre. He further states that the land of the sale deed are in the same property as that of the acquired land. In his cross examination he has stated that he had visited the property on 4th December, 1991. He denied the suggestion that Maria Hall, Chapel, Grocery Shop are at a distance of 1.5kms from the acquired land. He has also denied the suggestion that the Margao City is at a distance of 7 kilometres from the acquired land. 9. From the evidence adduced by the Respondent, I find that the land of the Respondent had potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose. The record reveals that the houses were already existing in the property surveyed under no.70, part of which has been acquired in the present acquisition. On perusal of the sale deed at Exh. AW1/A dated 30.6.1988, I find that the portion sold therein admeasures an area of 228 square metres from the same property belonging to the Respondent. Boundaries of the said portion reveal that the area sold is bounded on the North and West by the remaining part of the property of the Respondent and towards the East by the property of the purchaser and towards the South by the property of a - 7 - private person. The Reference Court as such was justified to come to the conclusion that the land acquired is comparable to the sale instance at Exh. AW1/A. 10. There is no dispute that the said sale instance at Exh. AW1/A is in respect of the property surveyed under no. 70. The land acquired is also surveyed under no. 70/1 which is in the same survey number. The Apex Court in the case of Bangaru Narsingha Rao Naidu & ors. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram ((1980)1 SCC 575), has held that the law is well settled that the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is afforded by a transactions of sale in respect of the very acquired land. Further, the Apex Court in para 10 of its judgment rendered in case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala ((1991) 4 SCC 195) has observed that when the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of the property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in the absence of the sales of the neighbouring lands. In the Judgment delivered in case of Ranvir Singh and Another Vs. Union of India ((2005) 12 SCC 59), the Apex Court has held that it is the well settled principle that the sale deeds pertaining to - 8 - the portion of lands which are subject to acquisition would be the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired lands. As such, considering the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to herein above, I find that the sale deed dated 30th June, 1988 would be the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired land. As such the sale deed at Exh. AW1/ A can form a basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. The price of the land was at the rate of Rs.197/- per square metre in the year 1987. Allowing 10% appreciation on cumulative basis for 3 ½ years, the amount works out to Rs. 280/- per square metres approximately. Allowing deduction of 1/3rd on account of development charges, the amount works out to Rs.186/- per square metres approximately. The Reference Court has awarded market value at the rate of Rs. 185/- per square metre which is just and proper. The contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that no deduction has been granted cannot be as such accepted. Considering the escalation at 10% per annum and after appropriate deduction the market value of the acquired land as determined by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 185/- per square meter cannot be considered inappropriate. Hence point for determination is answered accordingly. - 9 - 11. There is no merit in the present appeal and consequently the appeal stands dismissed with no Order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. vn*