-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.18 OF 2007 1. Shri Joaquim Santana Misquita (Since deceased through legal heirs) 1(a) Smt. Alexinha Misquita, widow of late Joaquim Santana Misquita 1(b) Miss Leena Maria Misquita daughter of Joaquim Santana Misquita 1(c) Shri Inacio Misquita son of Joaquim Santana Misquita 1(d) Smt. Lurdina Misquita daughter in law of Joaquim Santana Misquita All resident of Madhegal, Kakoda, Goa. 1(e) Smt. Darien Rebello, daughter of Joaquim Santana Misquita 1(f) Shri Manuel Xavier Rebello, son in law of Joaquim Santana Misquita 1(g) Smt. Almira Misquita Dias, daughter of late Joaquim Santana Misquita 1(h) Shri Terry Terestinho Dias, son in law of late Joaquim Santana Misquita Both resident of Codi, Quepem, 1(i) Smt. Angela Misquita Athaide, daughter of late Joaquim Santana Misquita 1(j) Shri Anthony Athaide, son in law of late Joaquim Santana Misquita Both residents of Bepquegal, Curchorem, Quepem, Goa. (All represented by their constituted Power of Attorney Smt. Alexinha Misquita, resident of Madhegal, Cacora, Quepem, Goa.) …... Appellants. -2- V e r s u s 1. Deputy Collector & S.D.O. Quepem, & Land Acquisition Officer 2. The Director of Technical Education, Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. …... Respondents Mr. V. R. Tamba, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- A. S. OKA F. M. REIS, JJ. Judgment Reserved on : 16 th August, 2010. Judgment Pronounced on : 30 th September, 2010. JUDGMENT : (Per F. M. Reis, J.) The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Case no. 4/2000 dated 31st July, 2006, by the learned Adhoc Addl. District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, whereby the reference filed by the Appellants was partly allowed. 2. By Notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the said Act), dated 3rd June, 1997, published in the Official Gazette dated 10th July, 1997, a portion of the property of the Appellants admeasuring an area of 10,050 square metres located in the property surveyed under no. 150/15 and 11,850 square metres with regard to the land surveyed under no. 161/1, was sought to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer by an Award under Section 11 of the said Act, -3- fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.32/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Appellants preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed an amount of Rs.200/- per square metre for the land acquired. The Reference Court by the Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2006, determined the market value of land acquired at the rate of Rs.48/- per square metre. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the market value of land was Rs.48/- per square metre when, on the contrary, there was cogent evidence on record to substantiate the claim of the Appellants that the market value of land was more than Rs.100/- per square metre. He further submitted that the land acquired in the present case and the land acquired in First Appeal no. 84/2007, are similar in nature as both the lands are adjoining one another and have been acquired for the same public purpose. He further submitted that all the facilities available in the land acquired of the subject matter of First Appeal no. 84/2007 and the land acquired in the present case, are similar in nature. He further submitted that the Appellants have produced the Sale Deeds dated 5th May, 1998, 6th June, 1998 and 15th October, 1996, which are comparable Sale Deeds which can form a basis to substantiate the claim of the Appellants that the market value -4- of land is more than Rs.100/- per square metre. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously discarded the sale instances produced by the Appellants. He further submitted that the Appellants are entitled for the compensation as determined in First Appeal no. 84/2007. 5. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly discarded the Sale Deeds produced by the Appellants as the same are not comparable sale instances. He further submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon the Sale Deed produced by the Respondents to come to the conclusion that the market value of land is Rs.48/- per square metre. He further submitted that the Appellants have failed to discharge the burden cast on them to establish that the compensation as offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. He further submitted that there is no reason for interference in the impugned Judgment and the Appeal deserves to be rejected. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point arises for determination in the present Appeal : 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.48/- per square metre ? 7. On perusal of the record, we find that the Sale Deeds produced by the Appellants are not comparable sale instances. The sale instances are -5- post notification Sale Deeds. The other Sale Deed which is dated 15th October, 1996, is a transaction wherein an industrial shed along with the assignment of their leasehold rights was effected which cannot be a sale instance which can be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land. On perusal of the Award, we find that the land acquired is for Polytechnic Institute. Apart from the land of the Appellants herein, there were lands of the Appellants in First Appeal no. 84/2007, which were also acquired by the same Notification. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the same compensation at the rate of Rs.32/- per square metre with regard to the said land which was subject matter of the land acquired in First Appeal no. 84/2007. There is no dispute that both the lands are similar in nature and are adjoining to one another. The Reference Court has also fixed the same market value of the land acquired in the present case and the land acquired in First Appeal No. 84/2007 on the basis of the same sale instance. This Court, whilst disposing of the said First Appeal no. 84/2007, has determined the market value of land as on the date of Section 4 Notification at the rate of Rs.68/- per square metre. We find no reasons to give any other rate for the land acquired in the present case. 8. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2009 (9) S.C.C. 489 in the case of Attar Singh & anr. Vs. Union of India & anr., has held at para 17 thus : -6- “17. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. The High Court based its decision on its earlier common judgment arising out of the same notification. The lead judgment was delivered in Jia Ram v. Union of India. We have not been informed whether any appeal has been preferred against that judgment and if so, what was the result thereof. In the absence of that information, we are of the opinion that the appellants should not be treated differently from Jia Ram who might not have preferred any appeal and have accepted the judgment of the High Court.” 9. In view of the said Judgment of the Apex Court, we find that the market value of the land acquired in the above Appeal is to be fixed at Rs.68/- per square metre for the reasons stated in First Appeal no. 84/2007. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the above, we pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2006, is modified and the market value of land is fixed at Rs.68/- per square metre. The remaining part of the Award granting statutory benefits is confirmed. (iii) The Appeal stands disposed of with no Orders as to costs. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*