1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2003 1) Special Land Acquisition Officer (N), T.I.P. Complex, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada,Mapusa, Bardez-Goa. 2) Executive Engineer, Works Division VI, Irrigation Department, Now under G.T.I.D.C., W.D. VIII, T.I.P. Complex, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez – Goa. .... Appellants V e r s u s Mr. Vithal Raghoba Prabhu Mambre, Nanora Latambarcem, Post Assonora. ..... Respondent. Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Respondent absent though served. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Neither the Respondent nor any advocate on his behalf is present. 2. By this appeal the appellants have taken 2 exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24th September, 2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case no.51 of 1993, partly allowing the reference sought by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). 3. By Notification dated 4.11.1991 issued under Section 4 of the said Act, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for the purposes of construction of Sanquelim Branch Canal of Left Bank Main Canal of Tillari Irrigation Project. An area admeasuring 9950 sq. metres bearing survey no.471 (part) of the respondent was part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per square metre before the Land Acquisition Officer and also claimed compensation towards trees and compound wall. The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 8.10.1992 and awarded Rs.8/- per sq.metre in respect of the plot of the respondent. Compensation was also awarded towards trees and compound wall. 4. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per sq.metre. The respondent also claimed that the area acquired was 3 10,000 sq.metres. The respondent claimed compensation of Rs. 1,34,882/- towards trees and compound wall. 5. In Land Acquisition Case No.51 of 1993 the respondent examined four witnesses namely, Digambar Mhambre, son of the respondent (A.W.1), Narayan Parsekar (A.W.2), Sambaji Pednekar (A.W.3) and Prabhakar Navelkar (A.W.4), the Valuer of the agricultural properties. The appellants examined Ashok Durgannavar, Assistant Engineer attached to Irrigation Department. The appellants relied upon three Sale Deeds executed in the year 1988 and 1989 and also the report prepared by the Valuer Mr. Navelkar. The Reference Court upon appreciation of the evidence awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.metre and rejected the reference in so far as the claim for trees and compound wall is concerned. The Reference Court also held that the respondent had not proved that the area acquired was 10,000 sq.metres. 6. Mr. Digambar Mhambre, AW-1 produced the Sale deed dated 10/8/1989 (AW.1/B) and Sale Deed dated 27.11.1989 (AW.1/C) and Sale Deed dated 25.5.1988 (AW.1/D). In terms of Sale Deeds AW.1/B and AW1/D, plots admeasuring 300 sq.metres were sold at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.metre in the same village and 4 by Sale Deed dated 27.11.1989, plot admeasuring 300 sq.metres int he same village was sold at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.metre. The Reference Court, placing reliance upon the Sale Deed dated 25.5.1988 and considering the yearly increase in price and making deductions thereafter arrived at the figure of Rs.25/- per sq.metre in respect of the acquired land. 7. Ms. Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that although the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance upon the Sale deed dated 25.5.1988, the Reference Court should have made deduction to the extent of 70 percent in as much as by the sale deed the area of 300 sq.metres was sold, whereas the acquired land was 9950 sq.metres. She further submitted that the sale deed plot was adjoining the highway, whereas the acquired land was not abutting the highway and, as such, further deduction ought to have been on this count. She, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order enhancing the compensation, in favour of the respondent deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. As stated above, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. The Reference Court has placed reliance upon the Sale Deed dated 26.5.1988, by which Nandini 5 Parsekar, wife of Narayan Parsekar, AW-2 had sold plot admeasuring 300 sq.meters at the rate of Rs.30 per sq.metre. In the cross examination of this witness it has been brought on record that the said plot was not leveled land, but was a rocky land. It was further brought on record that the acquired land is about 1 km. away from the said plot and about 200 metres from the road. The witness further stated that there was a road to the acquired land when it was acquired and he denied the suggestion that acquired land was about one and half km. from Assonora-Dodamarg road. The Reference Court has held that since the acquired land was partly sloppy and hilly and partly leveled, the sale deed plot dated 26.5.1988 (AW-1/D) was a comparable plot. I do not find any infirmity in the approach of the Reference Court. Taking the said sale deed as the basis for finding out the market value of the acquired land, after considering the yearly increase of 10% the market value of the sale deed plot as on the date of Section 4 notification i.e. 14.11.1991, would work out to Rs.41/- per sq.metre. Considering the largeness of the land acquired, as compared to the sale deed plot and considering that the sale deed plot was on the Assonora-Dodamarg road, whereas the acquired land was little away from the said road, I am of the considered 6 opinion that appropriate deduction would be 40%. I am unable to accept the submission of Ms. Linhares that appropriate deduction would be 70% in the absence of any material having been placed before me to justify such a huge deduction. There is no straight jacket formula in so far as percentage of deduction is concerned and the same depends upon several factors. After deducting 40% the market rate of the acquired land comes to Rs.24.60, which is rounded to Rs.25/- per sq.metre. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Reference Court was justified in awarding Rs.25/- per sq.metre and the same cannot be termed as excessive warranting interference by this Court. Needless to mention that the respondent would be entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act, as awarded by the Reference Court. 9. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed. However, the parties are directed to bear the costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-