1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.150 OF 2006 Godwin A.A. Gonsalves, R/o. Cujira, Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa, Through constituted power of attorney, Shri Joaquim A.A. Gonsalves, son of Lawrenco Gonsalves, 74 years of age, married, Retd. Engineer, resident of Cujira, Santa Cruz, Ilhas, Goa. …. Appellant V/s 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Salaulim Irrigation Project, Water Resources Department, Gogal, Margao, Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division XII (PHE), Public Works Department, Sanguem, Goa. …. Respondents Mr. V. Parsekar, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 15th JULY, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. V. Parsekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government advocate for the respondents. 2 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 3/03/2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.66/2005. 3. The land was acquired pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as “the said Act”, dated 12/05/1987 published in the Official Gazette dated 28/05/1987 from the village of Deao, Quepem Taluka for laying a pipeline for 160 MLD Salaulim Water Supply Project admeasuring an area of 7650 square metres from the property surveyed under no.123/1 of Deao Village. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer offered a sum of Rs.8/- per square metre, for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per square metre. By judgment and award dated 3/03/2006, the Reference Court rejected the reference filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3 4. Shri V. Parsekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court was not at all justified to rely upon the Sale Deed pursuant to which the appellant had purchased the property. The learned Counsel further submitted that on perusal of the Sale Deed, it is evident that there was a dispute with regard to the title of the land purchased by the appellant. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant has also produced the judgments passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Quepem in Special Civil Suit No.2/1989 wherein the appellant was a party and the suit filed by a person disputing the title of the appellant came to be dismissed. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appeal preferred challenging the said judgment was also dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 12/10/2004. The learned Counsel further pointed out that this itself suggests that the purchase effected by the appellant was in the nature of a distress purchase and, consequently, the price fixed therein cannot be considered to be the price a willing purchaser would offer to a willing buyer. The learned Counsel further submitted that part of the same property was the subject matter of an earlier acquisition wherein the Reference Court had fixed the compensation at the rate 4 of Rs.28/- per square metre. The acquiring body had preferred an appeal before this Court and before the Lok Adalat the amount of compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.16/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the said amount can form the basis for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land, considering that the notification in both the cases are within a period of one month and in any event the lands are similar in all respects. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously discarded the award passed before the Lok Adalat and, as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ms. S. Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Sale Deed itself suggests that the appellant has purchased the acquired land at the rate of Re.1/- per square metre and, consequently, the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.18/- per square metre cannot be said to be inadequate. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the purchase effected by the appellant is a distress purchase. The 5 learned Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the land which was the subject matter of the earlier acquisition was of a similar nature as that of the land acquired. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in any event as there is gross dissimilarity between the areas which were the subject matter of both the acquisitions, substantial deductions would have to be effected on that count. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the Reference Court was justified to answer the reference preferred by the appellant in the negative. 7. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is not disputed that in the earlier acquisition proceedings where an area of 3125 square metres was acquired for the same purpose, the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.16/- per square metre by this Court before the Lok Adalat. No doubt, such awards cannot by itself form the basis for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired 6 land, but however, in case there is no dispute with regard to the similarity of the land acquired in the proceedings before the Lok Adalat and the land acquired, there is no reason not to rely upon such awards for the purpose of determining market value of the acquired land provided the details are available. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Reference Court had fixed the market value of the acquired land therein at the rate of Rs.28/- per square metre. No doubt, the respondents had preferred a appeal and the same came to be decided before the Lok Adalat and the amount was settled at the rate of Rs.16/- per square metre. 8. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2009 (9) SCC 289 in the case of Attar Singh v. Union of India, has held at para 16 thus: “16. On what basis the aforementioned settlement in the Lok Adalat was arrived at is not known. Details of the land with regard to location, nature, advantages and disadvantages pertaining thereto are absent. In the absence of any detailed particulars showing the similarity of the land and/or the respective advantages and disadvantages pertaining thereto, in our opinion, the said settlement had rightly not been made the basis for determining the market value of the land. The High Court, thus, was required to determine the fair market value of the land on the basis of the legal principles laid down by 7 this Court in the decisions referred to hereto before. No contention has been/could be raised that the High Court in passing the impugned judgment failed to take into consideration the well-settled legal principles.” 9. In the present case, there are sufficient details with regard to the location of the land acquired which was the subject matter of the said proceedings before the Lok Adalat. Both the properties are part and parcel of the same survey numbers bearing Survey No.123/1. There was another piece of land surveyed under no.123/2 which was the subject matter of the acquisition in respect of the award passed before the Lok Adalat. The survey numbers are the same, besides on perusal of the evidence of AW1, he has categorically stated that the survey number, claim and the facts involved are exactly the same as the ones which were the subject matter of the previous acquisition in all aspects. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents in the cross-examination of AW1. The material, as such, conclusively establishes that the land which was subject matter before the Lok Adalat and the land which was acquired in these proceedings are similar having same advantages and disadvantages. Even Land Acquisition Officer while offering the compensation for the land acquired in the present case and the 8 land acquired in the earlier proceedings had offered the same compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre. This itself suggests that there is no difference between the land acquired in the earlier proceedings and the land which was the subject matter of the present proceedings. As such, the award passed by this Court before the Lok Adalat can form the basis for determining the market value of the present acquisition. 10. With regard to the Sale Deed produced by the respondents dated 15/09/1982, I find that the Sale Deed itself suggests that there was a dispute of title in connection with the land which was subject matter of the said Sale Instance. Evidence has also been adduced to disclose about the pendency of the litigation with that regard. Hence, the Reference Court was not justified to rely upon the said Sale Deed for the purpose of rejecting the claim put forward by the appellant. The said Sale Instance appears to have been executed in special circumstances and subject to the litigation in respect of the title of the vendor and the survey entries were not standing in the name of the vendors. The reference to such disputes is found in the affidavit of AW1. Hence, the price mentioned therein by itself cannot form the basis to determine the 9 market value of the land acquired. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the said award before the Lok Adalat can form the basis for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land, as the respondents have failed to show any dissimilarities with the acquired land. There is no dispute that the land acquired therein was admeasuring 3125 square metres whereas the land acquired in the present proceedings is 7650 square metres. Hence, in view of the largeness of the area a deduction of 15% would be just and appropriate. The market value of the land acquired, as such, works out to Rs.13.50 per square metre. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 12. In view of the above, we pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 3/03/2006 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.13.50 per square metre for the land acquired. 10 (iv) Needless to state, the appellant are entitled for statutory benefits under the provisions of Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act, in accordance with law. (v) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-