1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.265 OF 2006 1. Deputy Collector (L.A.), Margao. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI (Roads), PWD, Fatorda, Margao. …. Appellants V/s Maria dos Anjos Mergulhao, R/o. Near Mangol F. D. Shop 35, Margol, Vasco da Gama. …. Respondent Shri G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri R. Menezes, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 8th NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Case No.152/2000 dated 24/11/2005, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa at Margao. 2 3. By a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') dated 4/11/1996, the appellants acquired a portion of the property belonging to the respondent, admeasuring an area of 140 square metres from the property surveyed under no.24/10 of village Navelim for improvement and black topping of the road at Ravora, Nagmodem, Mandopa and Solpeaband of Village Panchayat of Navelim. The Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award under Section 11 of the said Act has offered compensation of Rs.10/- per square metre for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.1000/- per square metre. 4. By the impugned judgment and award dated 24/11/2005, the leaned Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.141/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Shri Guru Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate 3 appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge whilst fixing the compensation for the land acquired has relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 20 which is of the year 1996, which according to him was a developed plot and, as such, the deduction effected by the Reference Court of 50% is on the lower side. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering that the said Sale Deed plot is a developed plot the deduction of 67% would be appropriate in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2010 (1) SCC 444 in the case of Subh Ram & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr. The learned Government Advocate further pointed out that the land acquired was in the village of Mandopa whereas the Sale Deed plot is from the village of Telaulim and, as such, it was not open for the Reference Court to rely upon the said Sale Deed as the basis for fixing the market value of the land acquired. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondents have failed to discharge the burden to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and, as such, the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4 6. On the other hand, Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the sale instance at Exhibit 20 can form the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Learned Counsel further pointed out that though the land acquired was situated at Mandopa and the Sale Deed is of Telaulim village, both the said villages come within the jurisdiction of Village Panchayat of Navelim and in any event the nature of the land is similar to the land acquired and that the Sale Deed is at a distance of about 1.5 kms away from the acquired land. Learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence conclusively establishes that the land acquired is similar to the Sale Deed plot and, as such, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: 5 POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.141/- per square metre. 8. In support of his claim for enhancement, the respondent has examined Olavo Dias as AW1. He has stated in his affidavit that the land which has been acquired is a prime flat land fit for the purpose of construction and the area around is settlement zone and is full of residential houses. He has further stated that the land acquired is about 300 metres from the Margao-Navelim road and is served by the Mandopa road to NH-17. He has further stated that the acquired land passes through the residential area where houses are clustered very close to each other and touches the acquired land. He has also stated that Kudchadkar hospital and the Rajendra Prasad stadium, new market of Margao, banks and the other infra structure facilities are available within 2200 metres from the acquired land and Navelim market is about 200 metres from the land acquired. He has produced the Sale Deed dated 24/04/1996 in respect of the property whereby 354 square metres of land was sold at the rate of Rs.285/- per square metre. He has further stated that the Sale Deed plot was similar in nature as the acquired land 6 and is in a thickly populated area and has all the amenities that are enjoyed by the property from which the land is acquired. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the acquired land is located on the left hand side when one proceeds from Margao to Canacona by NH-17 and the acquired land is at a distance of 200 metres from the said road. He has further stated that there are two residential houses located in the property belonging to his family, occupied by the tenants. The next witness examined is Shri Vikas V. Dessai, who is a valuer and has produced a valuation report in support of the claim of the respondent. According to his report the land has been valued at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square metre. 9. The learned Judge has after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the Sale Deed at Exhibit 20 can form the basis for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. The learned Judge has noted the dissimilarities between the acquired land and the Sale Deed plot and effected deduction of 50% towards development charges and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.141/-. 10. With regard to the contention of the learned Government 7 Advocate appearing for the appellants to the effect that the Sale Deed plot at Exhibit 20 is a developed plot, on perusal of the said Sale Deed there was no statutory sanction obtained by the vendors therein for the purpose of selling four pieces of the property to the purchasers. The plan annexed to the Sale Deed also does not disclose any sanction from any of the statutory Authorities for any sub-division. As such, the contention of Shri Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate that the Sale Deed plot was a duly approved sub-divided plot cannot be accepted. Learned Judge has rightly noted the dissimilarities between the acquired land and the Sale Deed plot and has come to the conclusion that considering that the Sale Deed plot is closer to the highway whereas the land acquired is further, has deducted 50% on account of the dissimilarities noted in the impugned judgment. The evidence of AW1 clearly demonstrated that the nature of the acquired land and the Sale Deed plot are similar. There is no challenge to the said statements made in the cross-examination of AW1. Apart from that, the evidence on record discloses that the land acquired had potentiality of being used for non agricultural purposes, as the land is located in a residential locality surrounded by houses. 8 11. Considering the above evidence on record, I find that the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.141/- per square metre on the basis of the sale instance at Exhibit 20. The contention of the learned Government Advocate to the effect that the land acquired was for the purpose of improvement of the existing road does not by itself in any way affect the right of the respondent to claim the compensation for the land acquired at the relevant prevailing rate under Section 4 of the said Act. In any event considering the deduction made by the Reference Court, I find that the said negative factor, if any, has been duly taken care of whilst fixing the market value of the land acquired. 12. After considering the dissimilarities of the land acquired and the Sale Deed plot and considering the evidence on record, I find that the Reference Court has rightly fixed the amount of compensation for the land acquired. The amount determined by the Reference Court cannot be said to be exorbitant and hence no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 9 13. In view of the above, I find there is no merit in the above appeal and, consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-