1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.169 OF 2005 1. Deputy Collector and S.D.O. Mormugao, Vasco da Gama. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (R & B), PWD, Fatorda, Margao. …. Appellants V/s Shri Godwin Thiers Piedade Fernandes r/o. House No.285/A, Sinquetim, Navelim, Salcete. …. Respondent Mr. S. Vahidulla, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 30/09/2010 JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. This is Government's appeal and is directed against judgment dated 21/02/2005 of the learned Reference Court by which compensation payable for the acquired land has been enhanced from Rs.7/- to Rs.155/- per square metre. 2 3. There is no dispute that the applicant's (respondent, herein) land admeasuring about 770 square metres from plot surveyed under no.149/6-A of Navelim village in Salcete Taluka was acquired for the construction of the road from Alemao wado to Nagmodem via Sinquetim in village Telaulim in Navelim of Salcete Taluka. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was gazetted on 11/03/1993. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the applicant a sum of Rs.7/- per square metre. The applicant claimed Rs.300/- per square metre. 4. The applicant sought a reference made, and in that reference had examined himself and had produced two sale deeds in support of his claim for enhancement. The first sale deed Exhibit AW1/A is dated 27/09/1989 by which a plot of 600 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.250/- per square metre. The second sale deed was AW1/B dated 18/06/1990 by which a plot of 275 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.226/- per square metre. The applicant had examined the purchaser of the second sale deed as AW2. The applicant had also examined AW3/Christopher Furtado, who claimed that he had assisted Mrs. Maria Martins when she purchased the property by deed Exhibit AW1/A. Applicant's acquired property was situated at a distance of about 100 metres 3 from Navelim- Sinquetim road and it appears that there was a foot way, to pass through it, which by virtue of the acquisition has been constructed as a road. The learned Reference Court has taken the first sale deed Exhibit AW1/A as a basis for determining the compensation payable to the applicant. The plots of this both the sale deeds were situated in the same village and that of plot Exhibit AW1/A was situated within a distance of about 1 to 1.5 kms. or so from the acquired land. The evidence showed that all basic amenities were available near Navelim church at a distance of about 2 kms from the acquired property and which in turn was at a distance of about 3½ kms from the building of Margao Municipal Council, at Margao. The learned Reference Court in determining compensation at the rate of Rs.155/- per square metre observed as follows: “I consider that sale instance at exhibit AW1/A is best and most reliable guide as comparable to the acquired land. However, one significant difference in exhibit AW1/A is that same is a sub-divided plot. Although in addition to it water facility was not available to the acquired land the said water facility was available within the vicinity of the acquired land and that factor does not affect the applicant in any manner. The sale deed at exhibit AW1/A is in close proximity prior to the date of notification nearly more than 3 years. The size of the land under acquisition and under sale instances is more or less similar so also location and features and advantages and disadvantages. Keeping in view the various factors mentioned hereinabove respecting the land covered by the sale deed vis-a-vis land under 4 acquisition the property under sale deed is almost identical with the acquired land except that property under sale deed is developed land. Having regard to all the factors such as making allowances for land acquired to be set apart for roads, open spaces, parks, the expenditure involved in forming the layout, waiting period in the sale of plots and several other factors, it would be safe and reasonable to make 50% of deduction. Hence, I fix the rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.125/- per square metre. As stated sale deed at exhibit AW1/B is dated 18/06/1990, three years and 5 months prior to the notification of the acquired property. It is common knowledge that price of the land is rising day by day. On appreciating the value of the land at the rate of 10% per year, I fix the rate of the acquired land at Rs.155/- per square metre as on the date of notification.” 5. Shri Vahidulla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Government submits that the sale instance Exhibit AW1/A is not comparable. Next, learned Counsel submits that the deduction taken of 50% was on the lower side. In my view, both the submissions cannot be accepted. It is now well settled that the comparable sales method of valuation is preferred for determining the compensation but there are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled. One of them is that the sale must be a genuine transaction. The other must be that the sale must be executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification from the time angle and situation angle. The size of the plot covered must be comparable. In case there are dissimilarities it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for the acquired land 5 then what is reflected in the sale deed depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land. As regards the deduction, it may be stated that what deduction is to be taken in particular case is not based on any principle of law but depends from case to case, place to place and on variety of other factors, particularly the disadvantages the acquired land suffers from, when compared to the land of the sale deed chosen to form the basis of the determination of the price of the acquired land. The learned Reference Court taking note of the disadvantages the acquired land suffered from as compared to the land of the sale deed has taken a deduction of 50% and granted appreciation of 10% and fixed the compensation payable at Rs.155/- per square metre. The approach adopted by the learned Reference Court cannot at all be faulted. 6. I find there is no merit in this appeal and, consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. Government to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-