1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.229 OF 2004 1. The Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (Cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, WD-XXV(R), Fatorda, PWD, Margao, Goa. …. Appellants V/s Shri Anand Mahadev Prabhudessai, R/o. Loliem, Canacona, Goa. …. Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.129/2001 by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao dated 25/05/2004. 2. The land belonging to respondent was sought to be acquired admeasuring an area of 500 square metres from the property surveyed under No.114/3 situated at Loliem, Canacona Taluka, for the purpose of constructing a road from Shri Shankarsha temple to National Highway No.17 at Daptamol, pursuant to a notification 2 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) dated 14/10/1996 published in the Official Gazette dated 20/02/1997. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 5/01/2000, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of `6/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference for an enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed an amount of `125/- per square metre for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 25/05/2004, the Reference Court has fixed compensation for the land acquired in respect of the property surveyed under No.114/3 at the rate of `42/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Ms. Susan Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected herself in enhancing the compensation for the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that the question of enhancing any compensation would not arise as respondent has failed to discharge the burden caste on them to establish that the 3 amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Counsel took me through the evidence on record and pointed out that the Sale Instances produced by the respondent are not comparable with the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that the respondents are entitled for any enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the Reference Court after minutely considering the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the land acquired was comparable with the Sale Instances. Learned Counsel further submitted that this Court has enhanced compensation for the land acquired in respect of the property surveyed under No.116/4 at the rate of `65/- per square metre and that in respect of the land surveyed under No.112/3 at the rate of `32/- per square metre. Learned Counsel took me through the plan on record and pointed out that the land which is subject matter in the present case is superior to the land which was surveyed under No.114/2. Learned Counsel further submitted that no interference is called for by this Court in the 4 impugned judgment and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the Reference Court while determining the compensation payable to the appellants has relied upon the Sale Deed at Exhibit 5 & 6 wherein the property surveyed under no.356/10 and which was abutting to National Highway was sold, after leaving a set back area for the National Highway, at the rate of `150/- per square metre. The Reference Court has found that the Sale Deed plot was leveled land whereas the acquired land was sloppy and hilly terrain. On perusal of the plan, there is no dispute that the Sale Deed plot was abutting the National Highway. The land acquired does not touch the said National Highway. The land is located in the interior. The Sale Deed plot was a leveled land whereas the acquired land was sloppy and terrain in nature. All these dissimilarities naturally would result in deductions to be effective for the purpose of determining the market value of an undeveloped land as was the case in respect of the land acquired. The Reference Court was, as such, justified to effect the deduction of 65% to fix the compensation for the land acquired. The Reference Court after giving an escalation to 10%, considering the 5 difference between the dates of the Section 4 notification and the Sale Deed plot, has fixed the compensation at the rate of `42/- per square metres. This Court whiles disposing of First Appeal No.224/2004 has fixed the compensation in respect of the land acquired from Survey No.116/4 at the rate of `65/- per square metre and as far as land surveyed under no.114/2 is concerned at the rate of `32/- per square metre. The respondent in the present case has not filed any cross-objections. 6. Considering the judgment of this Court while disposing of the said First Appeal, I find that compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of `42/- per square metre cannot be said to be unjust or exorbitant. There is no infirmity committed by the Reference court in fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of `42/- per square metre for the reasons stated while disposing of the said First Appeal. I find that no interference is called for in the present appeal filed by the appellants. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the above appeal and, consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-