:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2006 1. Executive Engineer, W. D. XXV(R), PWD, Borda, Margao. 2. The Deputy Collector &, Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa Sub Division, Quepem. …. Appellants V e r s u s 1. Shri Chandrakant Yessu Prabhu Dessai, 2. Shri Bablo Sukdo P. Dessai Both r/o Gauthan, Cotombi, Quepem Goa. …. Respondents Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J DATE : 29 th JULY, 2011 . ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 11.08.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 3/2000. 2. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the :2: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) dated 06.02.1996 published in the Official Gazette on 22.02.1996, land belonging to the respondents was acquired by the appellants from the property surveyed under No. 23/9, admeasuring an area of 385 square metres situated at Cotombi in the Village Panchayat of Avedem Cotombi in Curchorem Constituency for the purpose of improvement and black topping of the road at Cotombi having a length of 900 metres. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, a sum of Rs.38/- per square metre was offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.100/- per square metre for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 11.08.2005, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and enhanced the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.54/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Guru Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court :3: has totally erred in relying upon an award at Exhibit 18 while determining the compensation of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the award in the said case was of the year 1984 and the acquisition in the present case was of the year 1996 and in view of difference in the time period, the question of relying upon the said award would not be justified. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Judge totally misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record and has come to an erroneous conclusion that the respondents were entitled for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and submitted that the ground on which the compensation has been enhanced cannot be sustained in law and as such the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The respondents though served failed to remain present at the time of hearing of the appeal. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal. :4: POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.54/- per square metre ? 6. The respondents in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation have examined Shri Chandrakant Y. P. Dessai as AW1. He has stated that the acquired portion of the property surveyed under No. 23/9 of Village Cotombi is in Quepem Taluka and an area of 385 square metres was acquired from the said property. He has further stated that the acquired land was abutting the main road from Chandor to Quepem and Chandor -Margao road is at a distance of about 200 metres from the acquired land. He has further stated that all the necessary amenities and facilities such as electricity, transport, water, telephone etc., as well as school were available at a distance of about 500 metres from the acquired land. He has further stated that Atlantic Spinning Mills and Mormugao Steel factory are located within three kilometers from the acquired land. He has relied upon a sale deed dated 13.04.1994 and the said sale deed plot is stated to be at a distance of about 50 metres from the :5: acquired land wherein the price at which the land was sold is at the rate of Rs.110/- per square metre. He has also produced a copy of the award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 19.01.1989 wherein the acquired land was located in remote and isolated area of the Village and the closest houses were at a distance of about 150 metres and still in the year 1984 the compensation was paid at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. He has accordingly claimed that he is entitled for a sum of Rs.100/- per square metre for the acquired land. In his cross examination, he has stated that he has not taken any opinion from any expert to assess the market value of the acquired land. He has further admitted that the sale deeds plots were sold to the persons who have their own houses in the land. He has further denied the suggestion that the sale deeds plots were sold for commercial purpose. He has further denied the suggestion that the sale deeds plots are much better as far as civic amenities are concerned. The learned Judge whilst passing the impugned judgment has held that the contention of the appellants that the sale deed at Exhibit 17 was executed on account of compulsion cannot be ruled out and in view of the fact that the purchaser already had his own house therein. The learned Judge as such did not rely upon said sale deed. :6: Dealing with the award at Exhibit 18, the learned Judge has found that the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.30/- per square metre in respect of the land acquired in the said proceedings. The land which was acquired in the said proceedings was pursuant to a notification dated 18.06.1984 and the land was located in the same village. The learned Judge has noted that there was a gap of 12 years between the date of the Section 4 notification in the said award at Exhibit 18 and the present proceedings and awarded a sum of Rs.2/- per square metre on account of appreciation for the said period of 12 years. 7. Considering that the said land is located in the interior of the village as compared to the land acquired, I find that the appreciation made by the Reference Court which is about 7% per annum cannot be said to be excessive. The land acquired is situated at Cotombi Village which is far from the commercial city and as such the appreciation cannot be higher than the one awarded by the Reference Court. The evidence on record does suggest that the land acquired was located in the vicinity of the amenities such as electricity, power and telephone etc. which has not been disputed by the appellants. The Land Acquisition Officer himself had offered :7: Rs.30/- per square metre for the land acquired in the year 1984 in an award under Section 11 of the said Act in respect of land in the same village. As such, considering the nature of the land and the fact that both the lands are located in the same village of Cotombi, I find that the amount awarded by the Reference Court at Rs.54/- per square metre cannot be said to be exorbitant. The learned Counsel for the appellants was not justified to contend that the respondents have not established that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The appellants have failed to lead any evidence in support of the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.54/- per square metre which is fair and reasonable. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above appeal and as such the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J at*