1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2006 1. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D.(Cell), Altinho, Panaji-Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division XIII, P.W.D.(R), Mapusa, Bardez-Goa. ... Appellants versus Shri Shankar Sadashiv Sinai Colvalkar, resident of Flat No.1, Sitara Mansion, Near ESI Hospital, Colmorod, Salcete-Goa. ... Respondent Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri S. G. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 11TH APRIL, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 22-12-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.101 of 2004. The land belonging to the 2 respondent surveyed under Chalta No.138 of Mapusa City admeasuring an area of 160 sq. meters was intended to be acquired by the appellants pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for constructing parallel by-pass from Khorlim joining Mapusa Assagao road. The said notification was dated 6-6-2002 and the notification under Section 6 of the said Act was dated 2-5-2003. By an award passed on 23-1-2004 under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer offered a compensation of Rs.125/- for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed a sum of Rs.800/- per sq. meter for the land acquired. 2. The Reference Court by Judgment and Award dated 22-12-2005 partly allowed the said reference and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.225/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3 4. Ms. S. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the respondent has not adduced evidence to show that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Learned Additional Government Advocate has further pointed out that the sale deed produced by the respondent cannot form the basis for determining the market value of the land acquired as the plot is not comparable with the land acquired. Learned Additional Government Advocate has taken me through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has not at all applied its mind whilst determining the compensation in favour of the respondent. Learned Additional Government Advocate has taken me through the evidence adduced by the respondent and pointed out that the respondent has failed to discharge the burden cast on him to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Additional Government Advocate as such pointed out that the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Shri S. G. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel has further pointed 4 out that the land had high potentials, and in fact the Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation to the minimum rate of Rs.500/- per sq. meter, considering that the sale deed plot produced by the respondent which was executed within proximity of Section 4 notification was sold at the rate of Rs.1000/- per sq. meter. Learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired is at a distance of 200 meters from the sale deed plot and the question of excessive deduction is not at all justified. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises. 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was at the rate of Rs.225/-? 7. In support of the claim for enhancement of compensation, the appellants have examined Shankar Sadashiv Sinai Colvalkar who has stated that the land acquired was part and parcel of the property surveyed under Chalta No.130 of P. T. Sheet No.138 and the said land had an area of 568 sq. meters out of which 160 sq. meters was acquired. He has 5 further stated that the said land is untenanted and located in the settlement zone of Mapusa City. He has also stated that at the time of notification under Section 4 of the said Act the price was around Rs.800/- per sq. meter. He has produced a sale deed dated 8-7-2002 whereby a plot was sold admeasuring an area of 617 sq. meters for a total price of Rs.6,17,000/- which works out to Rs.1000/- per sq. meter. He further stated that the sale deed plot is similar in nature with the land acquired. He has also produced another sale instance of a plot admeasuring 415 sq. meters wherein the rate is fixed at Rs.843/- per sq. meter which is situated at a distance of 200 meters from the acquired land. He has also produced a report of Mahendra Kakule, who is a government approved valuer. In para 11 of the said affidavit, he has stated the distance from the acquired land and the facilities available in the vicinity of the land acquired. In the cross-examination, he has reiterated that the acquired land falls in the settlement zone and that towards the southern side there is a paddy field. He has further stated that the approach road touches his property. He has denied the suggestion that no car can pass through the said access. He has denied the suggestion that the sale deed plot is at a distance of more than 1 km. from the acquired land. The sale deeds referred to by the said witness are 6 at Exhs.PW1/A and PW1/B. The next witness examined is Mahendra S. Kakule who is an approved valuer. He has also produced a Valuation Report and has confirmed that the total area of the plot belonging to the respondent is 568 sq. meters out of which an area of 160 sq. meters has been acquired and that the land is falling in the settlement zone and is situated at a distance of 100 meters from Mapusa-Khorlim road and at a distance of about 400 meters from Mapusa bazaar. In the cross- examination, he has denied the suggestion that the land is not accessible by two meters wide road. He has further admitted that the sale deed plots are developed plots. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the acquired land. The Reference Court whilst passing the impugned Judgment fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.225/- per sq. meter. 8. On perusal of the evidence on record, the sale deeds produced by the appellants at Exhs. PW1/A and PW1/B are proximate to the date of the Section 4 notification issued in the present case. There is no dispute that the sale deed plots were developed plots though the respondent's claim that the sale deed plots are at a distance of 200 meters. The suggestion put forward by the appellants to the witnesses is 7 that the distance is about 1 km. There is no dispute that the land acquired is at a distance of 200 meters from the Mapusa bazaar. There is evidence on record that it is very close to the centre of Mapusa city. The evidence also suggests that the land is located in the settlement zone. Considering all these factors, I find that the Reference Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the sale deed plot can form the basis to fix the market value of the acquired land. In the present case, one of the sale deed plot is of Rs.860/- per sq. meter and the other of Rs.1000/- per sq. meter. The Reference Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.225/- considering that the sale deed plots were developed and the land acquired was admittedly undeveloped. I find that the amount fixed at Rs.225/- cannot be said to be unjust and exorbitant, in the circumstances of this case. 8. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel submitted that the amount awarded by the Reference Court should be enhanced as according to him, the deductions are exorbitant. I find that the same cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the respondent has not filed any appeal challenging the impugned Judgment nor has the respondent filed any 8 cross objections to challenge the compensation awarded by the Reference Court by the impugned Judgment. As such the respondent cannot be heard to claim any enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Though, there are no adequate reasons given by the Reference Court whilst fixing the compensation of the land acquired nevertheless on the basis of the sale deed at Exh.PW1/B, I find that the compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.225/- cannot be said to exorbitant or excessive, and as such no interference is called for, in the impugned Judgment. The respondent has established that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 is inadequate. The appellants have failed to adduce any evidence to support the amount offered in the award. Hence, I find no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following order:- ORDER 1. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. Registry is directed to pay the amount deposited by the appellants to the 9 respondent along with accrued interest thereon in accordance with law. F. M. REIS, J. RD