1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 134 OF 2002 1 Chandrakant G. Govekar, 2 Satyavati S. Govekar (since deceased through LR's) 2a Kanti Govekar, 2b Kalpana Govekar, 2c Vasudeo Govekar, 3 Shri Pranam S. Govekar 4 Tulshidas G. Govekar 5 Vassudev G. Govekar, All r/o Sonar Peth, Bicholim Goa. …....... Appellants. Versus 1 The Deputy Collector(Rev) Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji, Goa. 2 The Director of Agriculture, Panaji Goa. …....... Respondents. Mr. G. Nagvekar, Advocate for the appellants. Mrs. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2011 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. G. Nagvekar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mrs. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. In this appeal appellant nos. 1, 2(a) and 3 have expired during the pendency of the appeal and their legal representatives are not brought on record. Mr. Nagvekar submits that appeal in so far as appellant nos. 4 and 5 survives and their respective shares are 1/4th each in the acquired land. This position has not been seriously contested by Mrs. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Mrs. Linhares states that respondent nos. 4 and 5 were paid 1/4th share each of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In view of this position, the appeal survives in so far as appellant nos. 4 and 5 are concerned and stands abated in so far as other appellants are concerned. 3 3. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the Judgment and Award dated 10.12.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 53/1995 rejecting the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( 'the Act' for short). 4. Vide notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act dated 13.3.1990 which was published in the official gazette dated 23.8.1990, the Government of Goa acquired an area admeasuring 4229 square metres bearing survey no. 119/part situated at Bicholim belonging to the appellants for public purpose. The appellants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per square metre. By award dated 27.7.1993, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square metre. 5. Being aggrieved by inadequacy of the compensation granted, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square metre. 4 6. In Land Acquisition Case no. 53/1995 before the District Judge, Panaji, the appellants examined 4 witnesses namely AW1 Chandrakant Govekar, AW2 Mahadev Naik, Civil Engineer, AW3 Vishnu Walwaikar and AW4 Anil Kadkade. AW1 Chandrakant Govekar relied upon the sale deed dated 29.11.1990 - exhibit 12 in respect of survey no. 43/4 by which an area of 275 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.150/- per square metre; another sale deed dated 29.11.1990 exhibit 13 by which an area of 265 square metres of survey no. 43/4 was sold at Rs. 140/- per square metre. Sale deed dated 12.8.1992, exhibit 14 by which one Cuncolienkar sold a plot of 300 square metres at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre to one Mr. Khan. AW2 Mahadev Naik produced report dated 15.3.1990 which is at exhibit 16. AW3 Vishnu Walwaikar was vendor of the plots in exhibits 12 and 13 and AW4 Anil Kadkade was purchaser of the plot in exhibit 14. Respondents herein did not lead any evidence. 7. The Reference Court held that none of the sale deeds produced by the appellants was comparable to the acquired land and that no reliance could be placed upon the report of the valuer 5 who had visited the property after a period of almost 9 years, after placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer(7) Bombay and Bombay Suburban District Municipal Corporation Vs. Vishanji Virli Mepani and another, reported in AIR 1996 Bombay 366. 8. Mr. Nagvekar, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court has erred in not placing reliance upon the sale deeds dated 29.11.1990, exhibits 12 and 13 which were situated at a distance of about 25 metres from the acquired land. Mr. Nagvekar, further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the sale deeds dated 29.11.1990, exhibits 12 and 13 and fixed the market rate of the acquired land after making appropriate deductions, considering the largeness of the acquired land, development costs and also considering the fact that the sale deeds were executed after publication of section 4 notification. According to the learned counsel several amenities were available in the neigbourhood of the acquired land and as such the Reference Court ought to have enhanced the compensation in favour of the appellants. 6 9. Per contra, Mrs. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that no fault can be found with the judgment and award inasmuch as the Reference Court has rightly refused to place reliance upon the sale deed and the report produced by the appellants in support of their claim for higher compensation. In the alternative, Mrs. Linhares submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to place reliance on the sale deeds at exhibits 12 and 13, deduction to the extent of 80% ought to be made considering the largeness of the land acquired, development costs and also the fact that the sale deeds were executed after the publication of section 4 notification. 10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgment relied upon. 11. In view of the rival submissions, the following points arise for determination in the appeal:- i. Whether the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the reference? 7 ii. Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land? 12. As stated above, the evidence has been led on behalf of the appellants and no evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents. 13. Evidence of AW1 Chandrakant Govekar discloses that the Government hospital is near the acquired land and the bus stand at Bicholim is at a distance of about 1 k.m. The acquired land was also touching Bicholim Sanquelim road and Bicholim market is at a distance of about 1 k.m from the acquired land; football ground known as Shivaji Maharaj Maidan is situated at a distance of about 1 k.m from the acquired land and the industrial estate of Bicholim is situated at a distance of about 1 k.m.; Shantadurga Higher Secondary school is at a distance of 1250 metres from the acquired land and Bicholim Court building and the schools are at a distance of about a little more than 1 k.m from the acquired land. The evidence further discloses that the sale 8 deed plots exhibits 12 and 13 were at a distance of about 25 metres from the acquired land. The evidence of AW1 in so far as facilities are concerned is substantially corroborated by AW2 Mahadev Naik, AW3 Vishnu Walwaikar and AW4 Anil Kadkade. 14. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether the Reference Court could have rejected the reference by not placing reliance upon the sale deeds dated 29.11.1990, exhibits 12 and 13 and sale deed dated 12.8.1992 exhibit 14. In so far as the sale deed at exhibit 14 is concerned, the Reference Court was justified in not placing reliance inasmuch as the same was executed after a period of almost 2 years from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Reference Court was also justified in not placing reliance upon the report of the expert AW2 Mahadev Naik who had visited the property and prepared the report almost 10 years after publication of Section 4 notification, in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Vishanji Virli Mepani ( supra). In so far as the sale deeds dated 29.11.1990 upon which reliance was placed by the appellants is concerned, in my considered opinion, the Reference 9 Court was not justified in not considering the same on the ground that sale deeds were in respect of the developed plots. The evidence discloses that the acquired land was bharad levelled land, abutting Sanquelim Bicholim road and situated at a distance of 25 metres from the plots in the sale deed at exhibits 12 and 13. Therefore, the approach of the Reference Court in not placing reliance upon exhibits 12 and 13 cannot be sustained. 15. The next question which arises for consideration is that what would be the appropriate deduction to be made for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land vis-a-vis the sale deed plots in exhibits 12 and 13. Admittedly, sale deeds plots were admeasuring 275 and 265 square metres and were sold at the rate of Rs. 150/- and Rs.140/- per square metre. Therefore, the average price of the two sale deeds plots has to be taken as Rs.145/- per square metre. 16. In my considered opinion, having regard to the location, nature and the area of the acquired land is comparable with the sale deed plots in exhibits 12 and 13, appropriate 10 deduction for largeness and towards development costs would be 25% and 30% respectively. Moreover, the sale deed plots were sold after publication of section 4 notification. Therefore it would be appropriate to deduct further 10%. Therefore, in my considered view, for the purpose of fixing the market price of the acquired land it would be appropriate to deduct 65% from the average price mentioned in two sale deed i.e Rs. 145/-. Therefore, the deduction comes to Rs. 94.25. Hence market rate of the acquired land as on the date of section 4 notification works out to Rs.50.75 which is rounded off to Rs. 51/- per square metre. Consequently, the market rate of the acquired land as on date of publication of section 4 notification is fixed at Rs. 51/- per square metre. Appellant nos. 4 and 5 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the enhanced compensation and they are also entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act in the enhancement of compensation. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. The market rate of the acquired land is fixed at Rs. 51/- per square metre. Appellant nos. 4 and 5 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the enhancement of compensation with all statutory benefits. 11 18. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn*