1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA First Appeal No.202 of 2003 1. Deputy Collector (LA) and Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji. 2. Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs, Junta House, Panaji, Goa. ..... Appellants V e r s u s Smt. Victoria Fernandes, R/o Bairro Bondir, Santa Cruz, Goa. ..... Respondent. Shri S. Vadhidulla, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Reserved on: 29/09/2010. Dictated on: 7/10/2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: By this appeal the appellants take exception to judgment and award dated 28/02/2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, North Goa at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.44/1999 partly allowing the reference 2 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (“The Act” for short). 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 dated 22/3/1993 which was published in the Official Gazette on 6/5/1993 the Government of Goa acquired an area admeasuring 1635 square metres belonging to the respondent from survey no.573/1 from village Calapur for the purpose of construction of playground at Santa Cruz (Calapur). The respondent claimed Rs.300/- per sq.metre. The Land Acquisition Officer made award on 10/10/1996 and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per sq.metre. 3. In Land Acquisition Case No.44/1999, the respondent examined herself and Shri Subhashchandra N. Bhobe, a registered Valuer. He fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.263.20 per sq.metre. The 3 respondent relied upon sale deed dated 6/12/1989 (Exhibit 19) by which a plot of 300 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.metre. The claimant also relaid upon sale deed dated 12/10/21990 (Exhibit 20) by which a plot of land admeasuring 417 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs. 367.50 per sq.metre. Reliance was also placed on the award of the District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 57/86, wherein market rate of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.150/- per sq.metre. In the said case notification was published on 16/1/1984. The appellants herein did not lead any evidence. 4. The Reference Court held that the acquired land was in the outskirts of Panaji town and the distance of the acquired land and the limits of Panaji town was about 1.5 kms. Santa Cruz market was situated at a distance of about 400 metres and Panaji-St.Cruz road was at a distance of about 55 metres. The road leading to Bondir 4 was at a distance of about 150 metres from the acquired land and all other amenities such as high school, market, church, bank were located in close proximity of the acquired land. Admittedly, the acquired land was a paddy field and was below the road level by about 60-70 cms. There were several residential houses in the close proximity of the acquired land. The Reference Court relied upon two sale deeds and held that the same indicated that there was a rise in the price of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land and since the plots in sale deeds (exhibits 19 and 20) were proximate in time and location, the same could be relied upon for determining the market rate of the acquired land. The Reference Court held that the two sale deeds indicated that the price of a developed plot in the year 1989-1990 was in the range of Rs.350/- to 367/- per sq.metre. Placing reliance upon the two sale deeds and after considering the escalation in the price and after deducting 40% towards development cost 5 and another 40% on the ground that the acquired land was a paddy filed and was not accessible by road and and that it was below the road level, deducted another 40% and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.150/- per sq.metre. 5. Mr. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court has erred in placing reliance upon the two sale deeds since they were in respect of developed plots, whereas the acquired land was a paddy field. He further submitted that the deductions made by the Reference Court are much on the lower side and therefore the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that having regard to the location of the acquired land and the two sale deeds 6 relied upon by the respondent, it cannot be said that the market rate of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court is on higher side. He further submitted that the acquired land was at a distance of about 1.5 kms. from the limits of Panaji town and residential houses and other amenities were around the acquired land and therefore the market rate fixed by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. 7. In view of the rival submissions and findings given by the Reference Court the following point arises for determination in the appeal: Whether the market rate of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.150/- per sq.metre is on the higher side? If yes, what was the market rate of the acquired land on the date of publication of Section 4 notification? 7 8. As stated above, the Reference Court considered the location of the acquired land which had several facilities like road, church, market, bank, school etc. in the close proximity. The Reference Court also took into consideration the two sale deeds relied upon by the respondent for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land. No doubt, the plots in the sale deeds were developed plots, whereas the acquired land was a paddy field. But, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings record by the Reference Court while fixing the market rate of the acquired land since the Reference Court has deducted 80% from the price of the sale deed plots on the ground that the sale deed plots were developed plots, whereas the acquired land was a paddy field and below the ground level and did not have direct access to the main road. I find that the deductions made by the Reference Court are proper and the Reference Court has correctly arrived at the market rate of the acquired land after making 8 appropriate deductions on the basis of the sale deed plots and after taking into consideration the location of the acquired land and facilities available near the acquired land. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the exercise undertaken by the Reference Court cannot be faulted. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and award. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-