1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 160/2001 1. Smt. Ratan Santosh Mayenkar, 2. Shri Santosh S. Mayenkar, 3. Smt. Dipa Damodar Naik, 4. Shri Damodar Naik, 5. Shri Shiva Vishnu Naik (since deceased) through his legal heirs : (a) Smt. Rucmini Vithudas Naik (b) Shri Vithudas Sanu Naik, 6. Shri Deu Purushottam Naik (through their legal attorney, Shri Ashok Vithudas Naik, Resident of Takwada, Kumbarjua, Ilhas, Goa) ........ Appellants. V/s. 1. Deputy Collector (Rev.) & L.A.O., Panjim. 2. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Goa, Daman & Diu Industrial Development Corporation, Panjim. ........ Respondents. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Kankonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23rd October, 2000 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.106/94. Land of the appellants bearing survey No.419, along with the lands bearing survey Nos. 420(part), 391(part), 392 (part), 428(part), and 511 of Village Marcaim, Ponda Taluka was acquired at the instance of respondent No.2 by the State. A common notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) for acquisition of aforementioned lands was published on 27th January, 1992. An award under Section 11 of the Act was made on 15th February, 1994 by which the compensation calculated at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq. metre for the acquired land was awarded to the appellants. Being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation, the appellants made an application under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement. By the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court rejected the reference with costs and thereby confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court, the appellants are in appeal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants produced for my 3 inspection a copy of the judgment and award dated 24th June, 2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 283/2002 with First Appeal No.103/2003. First Appeal No.103/2003 arose out of the acquisition of land bearing survey No. 391(part), admeasuring 40,425 sq. metres belonging to the Communidade of Marcaim which was acquired under the same notification under Section 4 of the Act. In First Appeal No.103/2003, the Division Bench determined the market value of the land bearing survey No. 391 at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq. metre. 3. A plan of the property filed at page 46 of the paper book shows that the appellants' land bearing survey No.419 is adjoining survey No.391, the market value of which has been held to be Rs.12/- per sq. metre by the Division Bench. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the appellants were entitled to higher rate of compensation than Rs.12/- per sq. metre, because the land bearing survey No.391 had certain disadvantages which the appellants' land did not have. Land bearing survey No.391 belonged to the Communidade, and 4 consequently there were restrictions on its transfer, while there are no restrictions on transfer of the appellants' land. Some other distinguishable features were also sought to be pointed out. I am not satisfied if there were any other distinguishable features between the appellants' land and the land bearing survey No.391. While the land bearing survey No.391 appears to be a rocky, the appellants' land was a paddy land. Though the rocky land would have certain disadvantages for construction, the appellants' paddy land also required land filling before using it as a building site, which is a disadvantage, if it has to be put for construction purpose. In my view, except for the fact that there are restrictions on transfer in respect of the Communidade lands which do not exist in respect of the appellants' land, there is no other material distinguishing feature which would enhance the value of the appellants' land. The appellants' land would certainly have some additional value than the land bearing survey No.391 on account of it being a freehold land, without any restriction on transfer. Since the exact nature of restrictions on transfer are not placed on record, I estimate that the value of the appellants' land would be 10% more than the value of the land bearing survey No.391, which would be Rs.13.20 per sq. metre. 5 5. For these reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall pay to the appellants the compensation to be calculated at the rate of Rs.13.20 per sq. metre for the acquired land, after deducting the amount which has already been paid/deposited. In addition to that, the appellants shall also be paid solatium as well as statutory interest on the amount of compensation. D.G. KARNIK, J. ssm.