- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2004. Public Works Department Works Division VI ( R & B) Through the Executive Engineer, Having office at Fatorda, Margao, Goa. ........ Appellant. Versus Filipe Tiago Gama, R/o. Merces Vaddem, Vasco-da- Gama. ........ Respondent. Mr. A. Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellant. None present for the Respondent. Coram:-F. M. REIS, J. Date:-17th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 20th October, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition case no. 1/1994. 2. By notification bearing no. 22/250/84-RD dated 5th February, 1985 published in the Official Gazette dated 28th March, - 2 - 1985, the Appellant sought to acquire land belonging to the Respondent for the construction of an internal road from Bogmalo up to Bimuta in village Panchayat Chicalim having an area of 450 square metres out of the property surveyed under no. 71/1(part). 3. By an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the said Act dated 31st May, 1988 the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount the Respondent sought reference under section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed an amount of Rs.55/- per square metre for the land acquired. 4. The Reference Court by Judgment and Award dated 20th October, 2003, awarded compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre with statutory benefits. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Amey - 3 - Kakodkar appearing for the Appellant has submitted that there is no evidence produced by the Respondent to substantiate that the land acquired has a value of Rs.50/- per square metre. He further submitted that the Reference Court has indulged in surmises and committed an error that the rate of the land acquired was Rs.50/- per square metre. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the Reference Court could not have relied upon the observation made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award and come to the conclusion that the land acquired had potentiality for development. Learned counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court erred in relying upon the sale deed at Exh. 13 as it was in respect of an area of 100 square metres which was within CRZ restrictions. Learned Counsel further pointed out that deduction would have to be effected from the price shown therein for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the land acquired and the land subject matter of the sale instance are comparable. Respondent though served failed to remain present at the time of hearing. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arise - 4 - in the present appeal:- POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre for the land acquired? 8. AW1 Filip Tiago Gama in his deposition has stated that the entire property before acquisition comprised of an area of 3850 square metres and was consisting of a coconut garden land and a residential/dwelling house. He has further stated that the land was even and levelled land. He has also stated that in the present acquisition better portion of the land has been acquired for the construction of the internal road lying on the southern side of the property. He has further stated that the Respondent has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 55/- per square metre as properties in Bogmalo are densely populated with residential houses, hotels etc in the vicinity of the acquired land. He has further stated that all the amenities are available within a radius of 1 km from the acquired land and situated very close to the beautiful beach on the western side of the acquired land and was served by a mud road/pathway on one side of 1½ metres from the south western side. He has further stated that he relied upon the sale deed dated 25th February, 1984 whereby a plot - 5 - of land was sold at Rs.50/- per square metre and the said sale deed plot has no regular access to it and it is covered within the radius of 500 mtrs from the High Tide Line. He has further stated that the acquired land is better situated than the sale deed from the point of development. In the cross examination he has stated that the plot which is at Exh.13 is at a distance of 100 metres from the acquired land and that it was not developed. He denied the suggestion that the Land Acquisition Officer has given correct compensation. 9. AW2 Baptista Lucas, has deposed that he resides in the vicinity of the acquired land and the distance between his house and that of acquired land is only 100 metres. He has further stated that the acquired land is ideally situated and had potentialities of being used for construction purpose. He has further stated that the loality of Bogmalo is densely populated with residential houses, hotels etc. He has further stated that Bogmalo is served by Public Transport. He has further stated that around the acquired land there are amenities and facilities of electricity supply, water supply, etc. 10. Perusal of the evidence, I find that the acquired land is situated in the vicinity of residential houses and the said land has - 6 - potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose. In fact in the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer he has mention that the acquired land is near the Vasco city and the price in the locality is increasing day by day. The sale deed at Exh. 12 which is of the year 1975 cannot be considered as the same is not in proximate time from the date of section 4 notification as it is more than 5 years from the date of such notification, and as there are sale instances of more proximate time then the said sale instance. As such, the Reference Court was justified in discarding the sale instance at Exh. 12. The other sale deed relied upon by the Respondent is at Exh.13 which is in respect of a property admeasuring 100square metres which was sold at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre. The genuineness of the said sale deed has not been disputed. The evidence on record discloses that the land of said plot at Exh.13 is similar to the acquired land and both the lands are not developed. On perusal of the said sale deed no doubt it mentions that the land involved in the said sale instance is within the distance of 500 metres from the High tide line but however it is an admitted position that at the time of section 4 notification, CRZ restrictions were not imposed. The land which is subject matter of the present acquisition does not come within the said area but however the evidence discloses that it was accessible to the main - 7 - road, apart from the fact that the land had potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose. The land of the said sale instance did not even have a motorable access. The land acquired being located close to the main road had potentiality of being used for commercial as well as residential purposes. Considering all the factors, the land at Exh. 13 is comparable to the land acquired. The learned Additional Government Advocate is not justified to submit that the Respondent has failed to establish the comparability to the land acquired with the sale deed at Exh. 13. 11. Considering these facts I find that the amount determined by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.50/- for the land acquired is just and proper and hence no interference is called for in the fixation of the said amount. Point for determination is answered accordingly. 12. In view of the above, there is no merits in the Appeal and as such the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost. F. M. REIS, J. vn*