1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.125 of 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (S.I.P) I.D. Complex, Gogal, Margao, Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division VI P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao-Goa. .... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Smt. Cecelia Noronha, major; 2. Shri Damaciano A.J.J. Costa Noronha, both resident of H.No.102, Seraulim, Salcete-Goa. .... Respondents Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Ryan Menses, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE: 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 18.12.2002 passed by the 2 Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No.32 of 1993, partly allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“The Act” for short). 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act which was published in the Official Gazette on 31/1/1990, lands of several persons were acquired for public purpose. An area admeasuring 300 sq.metres bearing survey no.25/2 of village Seraulim belonging to the respondents was part of the acquired land. The respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.metre. The Land Acquisition Officer made award and granted Rs.30/- per sq.metre. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed Rs.60/- per sq.metre. 3. In Land Acquisition case no.32 of 1993, the 3 respondents/claimants examined Damaciano Costa Noronha, AW.1, Vikas Dessai, AW.2, Government Valuer and Bosco Cotta, AW.3. The claimants produced two sale deeds, namely sale deed dated 11.5.1989 between Arlin Cota and Robert Alvares by which an area admeasuring 4000 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq.metre. The claimants also relied upon sale deed dated 25.9.1989 executed between Luis Coutinho and Ulhas Lotlikar by which an area of 200 metres was sold at the rate of Rs. 210/- per sq.metre. The appellants also relied upon report prepared by the expert (Exhibit AW.1/C). The claimants also produced deed of rectification dated 9.4.1990 whereby the sale deed dated 11.5.1989 was rectified. The Reference Court placed reliance upon sale deed dated 11.5.1989 (Exhibit AW.1/A) which was at a distance of about 15 to 20 metres from the acquired land and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.60/- per sq.metre. 4 4. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon (Exhibit AW.1/A), for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land since the land sold by the said sale deed was not comparable to the acquired land. Mr. Shirodkar further submitted that in any event, the deed of rectification dated 9.4.1990 whereby the sale deed dated 11.5.1989 was rectified clearly discloses that there was a structure in the property sold, the value of which was Rs.20,000/-, as mentioned in the rectification deed. He further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have considered the rectification deed and hence the Reference Court, has erred in not considering the rectification deed. He further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have rejected the reference and therefore the appeal be allowed. 5. Mr. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the 5 respondents submitted that since the land in the sale deed (Exhibit AW.1/A) was similar to the acquired land, the Reference Court was perfectly justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.60/- per sq.metre. He further urged that even if the value of the structure is considered, the market rate of the acquired land excluding the structure would come to Rs.70/- per sq.metre and therefore the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.metre cannot be faulted. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. In view of the rival submissions and the findings given by the Reference Court the following point arises for determination in the appeal: Whether the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.metre fixed by the Reference 6 Court is just and proper?. If not, what compensation the respondents are entitled to? 7. As stated above, the Reference Court has placed reliance upon sale deed dated 11.5.1989 by which a plot of 4000 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. metre. The evidence on record clearly shows that the same was at a distance of about 15 to 20 metres from the acquired land. The land in the said plot was an agricultural land. In the present case also the land is agricultural. No doubt the Reference Court ought to have considered the deed of rectification by which sale deed dated 11.5.1989 was rectified, which clearly discloses that there was a structure existing in the plot sold which was valued at Rs. 20,000/-. Even if the value of the structure is considered for fixing the market value of the sale deed plot (Exhibit AW.1/A), the value of the land in the said sale deed plot would work out to Rs.70/- per sq.metre. The said deed was 7 executed on 11.5.1989 and the notification in the present case was published on 31.1.1990 i.e. after the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Reference Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon (Exhibit AW.1/A), but ought to have considered the deed of rectification, as stated earlier. Even if the deed of rectification is considered, the market rate fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.60/- per sq.metre cannot be termed as excessive, warranting interference by this Court with the impugned judgment and award. In my considered opinion, the market rate fixed by the Reference Court of the acquired land is just and proper and therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and award. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8 9. At this stage Mr. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays that the amount deposited by the appellants be paid to the respondents after the period of 90 days. 10. Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has no objection. 11. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to pay the amount deposited by the appellants along with the interest, if any, accrued thereon to the respondents after the period of 90 days. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-