1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.190 OF 2007 1. Deputy Collector & SDO, Ponda Sub Division, Ponda Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division XVIII, (Roads), PWD, Ponda-Goa. …. Appellants. V/s Shri Ivan G. Viegas R/o. 800, alto Betim, Bardez-Goa. (since deceased) through LR's: a. Smt. Maria Bernadette Viegas (since deceased) widow of late Ivan G. Viegas, b. Shri Colim Joseph Viegas, son of late Ivan G. Viegas, c. Smt. Sarah Viegas, wife of Colim Viegas, d. Shri George I. Viegas, son of late Ivan G. Viegas, e. Mrs. Nalini Viegas, wife of George Viegas, f. Shri Mark Alan Viegas, son of late Ivan G. Viegas, g. Mrs. Cornelia Viegas, wife of Mark Viegas, h. Shri Glen Russel Viegas, son of late Ivan G. Viegas, 2 i. Mrs. Suhasini Viegas, wife of Glen Viegas, All residents of H.No.800, Casa Maria Lucia, Alto Betim, Bardez Goa. …. Respondents Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 25th NOVEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the appellant. 2. The respondents have chosen to remain absent. 3. This appeal is directed against judgment/award dated 28/12/2005 of the learned Reference Court in LAC No.74/2001 by which compensation payable to the respondents/applicants has been enhanced to `40/- per square metre. There is no dispute that the applicants' land was acquired by the Government by virtue of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 dated 18/10/1999 for the purpose of Ponda bye-pass road from Dhavali to Candepar (Curti) via Bondbag and Betora in Ponda Taluka. An area of 8100 square metres was acquired from Survey No.59 and 3700 square metres was acquired from Survey 3 No.51 belonging to the applicants. By award dated 15/12/2000, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of `10/- per square metre for 8100 square metres and `14/- per square metres for 3700 square metres. The applicants sought enhancement at the rate of `400/- per square metre and in support of their case for enhancement relied upon two Sale Deeds namely Exhibit 14 dated 18/06/1990 and Exhibit 15 dated 17/10/1988. The applicants also relied on an award Exhibit 16 of the very selfsame land both of Survey No.59 (part) and Survey No.51 (part) acquired in the year 1992. The learned Reference Court discarded both the Sale Deeds and accepted the award Exhibit 16 by which compensation was paid at the rate of `25/- per square metre and which award the Government had accepted. 4. As far as the evidence of the applicant is concerned there is no dispute that the acquired land had all amenities and was situated in close proximity of Ponda city. It had power supply, water, roads, etc. and as stated by the applicants had tremendous agricultural and industrial potential. The acquired land was located at a distance of about one kilometre from the town of Ponda. 5. In enhancing the compensation, the learned Reference Court 4 observed as follows: “Admittedly land in the award at Exhibit 16 was acquired pursuant to notification in the year 1992 whereas the present acquired land was acquired vide notification in the year 1999 which is 6 years after the acquisition in Exhibit 16. It cannot be disputed and which fact is also clear by various decisions of apex Court that on an average there is an yearly rise of 10% in the price of lands. The rate of land in Exhibit 16 was fixed at `25/- per square metre in the year 1992 and thus considering 10% yearly rise in the price of lands, the acquired land would fetch rate at `40/- per square metre in the year 1999.” The learned Reference Court proceeded to assess the compensation payable to the applicants at the rate of `40/- per square metre. Shri Shirodkar fairly concedes that the method followed by the learned Reference Court is in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Karan Singh & Ors. V/s. Union of India (1997 (8) SCC 186). 6. In my view, the learned Reference Court has followed the correct method and has enhanced the compensation payable. I find that there is no merit in this appeal and, consequently, the same is hereby dismissed with costs of `5,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondents/applicants. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-