1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.301 OF 2006 1. The Deputy Collector (L.A.), Margao-Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XXI, PHE, P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao-Goa. …. Appellants V/s 1. Miss Maria Fernandes, Attorney of Smt. Conceicao Noronha Fernandes. 2. Cecilia Fernandes, R/o. House No.370, Behind PWD, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. …. Respondents Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Guru Shirodkar, learned Government advocate appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.122/2001 by the learned Additional 2 District Judge, South Goa at Margao dated 28/07/2006 whereby the reference preferred by the respondent was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act', an area of 490 square metres from the property surveyed under Chalta Mo.60 of PT Sheet No.45 of Margao City situated at Fatorda, Margao, Goa was acquired by notification dated 1/02/1991 for construction of the underground drainage scheme to Margao town Central Zone. The Land Acquisition Officer whilst passing an award under Section 11of the said Act offered compensation at the rate of Rs.52/- per square metre. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award dated 28/07/2006 enhanced the compensation for the land acquired to Rs.75/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the above appeal. 3. Shri Guru Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has totally failed to give any reasons to come to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled for enhancement of 3 compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre. Learned Government advocate has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has not at all applied his mind to the material on record and has come to an erroneous conclusion that the respondents are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired is situated at Fatorpa and, as such, the acquired land had no potential for non-agricultural purpose and, as such, the question of enhancing the compensation would not arise at all. The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondents have failed to discharge the burden that they are entitled for any enhancement of compensation. Learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the above appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court be quashed and set aside. 4. The respondents though served failed to remain present at the time of the hearing of the appeal. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: 4 POINT FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre? 6. On perusal of the evidence on record, I find that in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation, the respondents who were claiming enhancement to the tune of Rs.300/- per square metre have examined AW1/Miss Maria Fernandes, who is the respondent no.1 herein and also duly constituted attorney of the other respondent. In her deposition, she has stated that the area of 490 square metres from the property surveyed under Chalta no.60 of P.T. Sheet no.45 situated at Margao city was acquired for the said purpose. She has further stated that actual market value of the land acquired is Rs.300/- per square metre and that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is grossly inadequate. She has further stated that the land in the neighbourhood is in great demand and further stated that there are various construction activities in the vicinity of the land acquired. In her additional affidavit she has stated that the acquired land is adjacent to the internal tared road on the northern side and the same is leading from P.W.D. complex to Don Bosco. In support of 5 her claim for enhancement she has produced Sale Deed dated 27/03/1990 which is at Exhibit C-24 and also Sale Deed dated 25/04/1998 which is at Exhibit C-25 and award dated 27/02/1987 passed by the Reference Court which is marked C-26. She has also produced another award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.25/1982 at Exhibit 27. The said witness has been duly cross- examined. The respondent no.1 has denied that the land acquired was low lying. The said respondent, however admitted that the plot in Exhibit C-24 was fully developed. It is also not in dispute that land in Exhibit C-27 is located at Fatorda. 7. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Judge by the impugned judgment has enhanced the compensation to Rs.75/- per square metre. Though there are no appreciable reasons recorded by the Reference Court while enhancing the compensation for the land acquired, nevertheless, considering that the acquired land is situated at Fatorda within the vicinity of P.W.D. Complex and adjoining an internal road, I find that the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre. The instances produced by the respondents justify the said enhancement. The award in the present 6 case was passed in 1994. By the sale instance at Exhibit C-24 two plots totally admeasures about 320 square metres were sold at the rate of Rs.300/- per square metre approximately in the year 1990 in Fatorda close to the land acquired. Award at Exhibit 26 show that Reference Court in an acquisition at Fatorda in the year 1983 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per square metre. In the award at Exhibit 27, land acquired in 1988 for a stadium was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.95/- per square metre. Considering all the said sale instances, I find that the amount of Rs.75/-awarded by the impugned judgment cannot be said to be exorbitant. Apart from that considering the material on record the amount fixed by the Reference Court is fair and justifiable in the circumstances of the case. I find that no case is made out by the appellants to interfere in the impugned judgment. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above appeal which stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-