1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 321/2005 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer (North Goa), Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, P.O. Navelim, Salcete, Goa 403 707. 2. Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Rawanfond, Near Margao Railway Station, Margao, Goa. ..... Appellants. V/s. Devkibai Narayan Raikar, Jawaher Road, Post Koppal 583231, Raichur, Karnataka State. ..... Respondent. Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM :- F.M. REIS, J. DATE :- 11th MARCH, 2011. J U D G M E N T : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 9/05/2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.336/1995. 2 2. The land belonging to the respondent was to be acquired pursuant to a notification dated 5/12/1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as “the said Act”, for the purpose of construction of a new broad gauge line of Konkan Railway in Canacona Taluka. The land acquired consisted of an area admeasuring 1190 square metres from the property surveyed under no.54/7 and an area of 225 square metres from the property surveyed under no.57/12 which was a bund in the village of Nagarcem Palolem Cananona Taluka. By an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the said Act, a sum of Rs.4/- per square metre was offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. 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.600/- per square metre for the land acquired. By the judgment and award dated 9/05/2003, the learned Reference Court fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre in respect of the land surveyed under no.54/7 admeasuring an area of 1190 square metres. However, in respect of the land admeasuring 225 square metres from the property surveyed under no.57/14 no enhancement was granted by the Reference Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants 3 have preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Afonso, the learned Counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that there is no basis for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale instances produced by the respondents are not at all comparable with the land acquired and, as such, the question of awarding any enhancement as ordered by the Reference Court would not arise. The learned Counsel further submitted that there was a bunch of appeals preferred by the appellants in respect of the land acquired pursuant to the same notification and this Court in one of the judgments dated 7/04/2005 has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.19/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no reason to grant any amount besides the said amount of Rs.19/- per square metre as awarded by this Court in the judgment passed in First Appeal No.123/1999. 4. On the other hand, Shri P.P. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The learned counsel pointed out that the land acquired 4 was superior to the land which was the subject matter of the said appeal. The learned Counsel further submitted that in any event the respondent is entitled for compensation not only in respect of the land which is surveyed under no.54/7, but also in respect of the property surveyed under no.57/14 admeasuring an area of 225 square metres. He, accordingly, submitted that the appeal deserves to be rejected. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION: (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified to award compensation for the land acquired in respect of the property surveyed under no.54/7 at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment, the Reference Court while determining the market value of the acquired land has found that on the basis of deposition of AW1 the acquired land was a residential area and his house was situated at a distance of 5 metres from the acquired land. There were other houses also in vicinity thereof. The Reference Court has found that the sale instances 5 produced by the respondent were not comparable to the land acquired. In fact, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent was unable to point out any evidence on record to establish that the land acquired was comparable to the sale instances which are at Exhibit AW1/B dated 28/12/1988; AW1/C dated 5/06/1989 and AW1/D dated 10/12/1988. The Reference Court has relied upon an award passed in another acquisition wherein the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre and after giving an appreciation has fixed the market value of the acquired land on the relevant date at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. 7. On perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in a bunch of first appeals including First Appeal No.29/2000, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 7/04/2005, I find that the compensation has been fixed in respect of the land acquired therein at the rate of Rs.19/- per square metre. The land which was subject matter of the said acquisition was sought to be acquired pursuant to a notification dated 12/08/1991 for the same project and such land was located at Chaudi Canacona. In another bunch of first appeals including First Appeal No.123/1999 disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 1/04/2005, the compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs.19/- per square metre for the land 6 acquired therein. The subject matter of the acquisition in the said proceedings was land which was situated at Ngarcem Palolem acquired pursuant to a notification dated 24/07/1991 for the same purpose. This Court after examining the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired therein is to be assessed at Rs.19/- per square metre. In the present case, the notification issued under Section 4 is dated 5/12/1991 whereas in First Appeal No.123/1999, the notification was issued on 24/07/1991. The notification in respect of the land acquired in First Appeal No.29/2000 is also dated 12/08/1991. 8. Considering that the land acquired was in the same village and for the same project and the notifications were proximate to one another, I find that the compensation awarded by this Court in the said judgment would be material for fixing the market value of the acquired land. Considering all the factors, this Court has fixed the market value of the acquired land in the same village at the rate of Rs.19/- per square metre. The learned Counsel for the respondent was unable to point out any reason why a different compensation is to be awarded in respect of the land acquired in the present proceedings. For the reasons stated in the said judgment passed by this Court dated 1/04/2005 and 7/04/2005, I 7 find that the market value of the acquired land in the present proceedings is to be fixed at the rate of Rs.19/- per square metre in respect of the land admeasuring 1190 square metres from the property surveyed under No.54/7. 9. Dealing with the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that similar compensation is to be awarded in respect of the land which is surveyed under no.57/14 admeasuring an area of 225 square metres is concerned, I find no merit in the said contention. Admittedly, the respondent have not filed any cross-objection challenging the findings of the Reference Court to the effect that the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition pertaining to survey no.57/14 had a width of four metres and had absolutely no building potentiality. In fact, the evidence on record suggests that the said portion of the land acquired was a bund having a narrow width which could not be used for any construction purposes. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Reference Court declining any enhancement of compensation in respect of the land surveyed under no.57/4. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 8 11. In view of the above, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 9/05/2005 is modified and the compensation in respect of the said land acquired surveyed under no.54/7 is fixed at the rate of Rs.19/- per square metre. (iii) Needless to say that the remaining part of the award granting statutory benefits is confirmed. (iv) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-