1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 221/2004. 1. Deputy Collector, (SDO), Sub-Division, Margao. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI, Fatorda, Margao. … Appellants. V/s 1. Shri Dinanath Rama Naik, C/o Rama Yeshwant Naik & sons, Opposite Bank of India, Post Box No. 17, Margao, Goa. (Since deceased represented through legal heirs) 1.a. Lata Dinanath Naik, 1.b. Rama Dinanath Naik 1.c. Binda Naik 1.d. Vinayak D. Naik, 1.e. Sayee V. Naik, 1.f. Ajay D. Naik All residents of H.No.E-74, Bombi House. … Respondents. 2 Ms. Susan Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : F. M. REIS , J. DATE : 15 th October 2010 . ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao in LAC No. 128/1998. 2. The appellants acquired land belonging to the respondents for the construction of road from St. Joao Mol Via Toloi Vanelim Chinchmorod in Village Panchayat Colva pursuant to the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) dated 5.10.1990 and published in the Official Gazette on 14.2.1991. After complying with the formalities under the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO for short) passed an award dated 28.2.1994 and offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents sought reference for enhancement of the 3 compensation under Section 18 of the said Act and claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. metre, besides compensation for trees existing therein. By judgment and award dated 13.10.2003, the Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre and rejected the claim for the trees. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants preferred the present appeal. 3. The learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the said judgment and submitted that the land acquired is not comparable with the land which is subject matter of the award in LAC No. 54/1997. The learned Addl. Government Advocate further stated that even in the said award there were two rates granted by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre and Rs. 120/- per sq. metre for two different survey numbers considering the proximity to the amenities. She further submitted that the Reference Court was not justified to fix the market value at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre as the land acquired in the present case was more proximate to the land surveyed under No. 17/2 and the market value was fixed at Rs. 120/- per sq. metre in the said award. She further submitted that even assuming the said award is 4 considered, the market value of the acquired land is to be fixed only at Rs. 120/- per square metre. She further submitted that the said submissions is without prejudice to the contention that there is no comparability of the land acquired to the said award. 4. On the other hand, Mr. R. G. Ramani learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that the land of the respondents has better value than the land which was subject matter of the said award passed in LAC No. 54/1997. He further pointed out that the said award was in respect of two survey nos. 15/3 and 17/2 and that the land surveyed under No. 15/3 was classified by the LAO as road/pathway and the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. metre which came to be enhanced to Rs. 150/- per sq. metre by the Reference Court. He further submitted that the LAO had classified the land of the respondents in the present case as bharad land and fixed the compensation at Rs. 20/- per sq. metre which itself discloses that the land of the respondents was superior to the land which was subject matter of the award passed in LAC No. 54/1997. He submitted that the land acquired of the respondents and the land in the said award are pursuant to the same notification and there is no infirmity committed 5 by the Reference Court in fixing the market value at Rs. 150/- per sq. metre. He further submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point arises for my determination in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre. 6. In support of the claim for enhancement, the respondents have examined as AW1 Dinanath Rama Naik who has stated that the Margao city is situated at a distance of 2.5 kms. from the acquired land and there is infrastructure facility like school, church, bank, post office which are located in the vicinity of the acquired land. He further stated that at a distance of 10 metres there was a public road and as such the land acquired was easily accessible. He stated that the land was fit for construction purpose. According to the said witness the market rate of the acquired land was Rs. 400/- per sq. metre as on 6 the date of notification. He has produced in support of his claim for enhancement the award dated 18.9.1999 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No. 54/1997 granting an amount of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre. The said judgment is at exhibit AW1/A. He has stated that the said land is at a distance of 60 to 70 metres from the acquired land. He has produced the valuation report of Engineer Vikas Dessai who has given an opinion that the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 200/- per sq. metre. The appellants failed to cross examine the said witnesses in the said proceedings as their cross examination came to be closed on 10.3.2003. The Reference Court after considering the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the market value is to be fixed at Rs. 150/- per sq. metre. 7. On perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the acquired land and the land which is subject matter of the award at exhibit AW1/A are in the same notification. The Reference Court in the said proceedings has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre for the land which is surveyed under No. 15/3. However, in respect of the land which is surveyed under No. 17/2, the rate fixed therein is at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. metre. On perusal of the award passed by the LAO 7 under Section 11 of the said Act, I find that the land surveyed under No. 15/3 was offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. metre, whereas, the land of the respondents which is surveyed under No. 24/7 was offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. metre as it was bharad land. This itself shows that the land of the respondents was superior to the land which was subject matter of the said land acquired under survey No. 15/3 which was classified by LAO as road/pathway. Apart from that the appellants failed to cross examine AW1 to rebut his statement in his examination-in-chief to the effect that in view of the enhancement of compensation in the case at exhibit Aw1/A, the respondents be granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre. The appellants failed to adduce any evidence to disclose that the land of the respondents was inferior to the land which was surveyed under No. 15/3. The Appellants have also failed to adduce evidence that the land acquired was proximate or similar to the land Surveyed under No. 17/2. The contention of the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the market value is to be on the basis of the value of the land surveyed under No. 17/2 deserves to be rejected as the same cannot be accepted on the basis of material on record. As such, I find that there is no reason for interference in the judgment passed by the Reference Court in fixing the market value of 8 the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre on the basis of the award at exhibit AW1/A. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the above appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs. F. M. REIS, J. MF/-