1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 204 OF 2003 Goa Housing Board, A statutory Body constituted under, The Goa Housing Board Act, 1968, Having its registered office at Porvorim, Bardez-Goa. Represented by Executive Engineer, Shri A.V. Radhakrishnan, Major of age, having office at Porvorim, Bardez-Goa. .... Appellant V/s 1. Shri Pandurang V. Sawant, 2. Anandibai V. Sawant 3. Shri Krishna V. Sawant 4. Anil V. sawant. All majors of age and all residing at Near Municipal Garden, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. .... Respondents Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 16th APRIL, 2008 JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28/02/2003 of the learned Reference Court, Panaji by which the compensation payable to the respondents have been enhanced from Rs. 18/- to Rs. 150/- per sq. mts. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of the present appeal. 3. By virtue of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land 2 Acquisition Act, 1894 published in Government Gazette dated 16/06/1994, the Government acquired 27900 sq. mts. (regarding which there is no dispute now) of the respondents' property for the purpose of setting up of a Satellite Township and the Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 9/02/1996 offered a compensation of Rs. 18/- per sq. mt. to the respondents. 4. Dissatisfied with the said award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents/owners of the land made a reference to the Reference Court and in support of their case for enhancement, examined one of the respondents and produced four sale deeds. The respondents also relied upon the opinion of an expert, amongst other documents. The expert's opinion has been rejected by the learned Reference Court for reasons stated in para 11 of the impugned judgment and there is no grievance raised about the same. 5. There is no dispute that the respondents' property survey no. 102/1-A was situated at Colvale within the jurisdiction of that Village Panchayat and on the outskirts of Mapusa Municipal Council at a distance of about 5 kms. from Mapusa Municipal Market. It was situated across the bypass of National Highway No. 17 and the Northern portion of the respondents' property was bharad land having a slight slope, while the Southern portion was levelled and fertile, as noticed by the learned Reference Court. There is also no dispute that all amenities such as water, electricity, telephone, school, 3 petrol pump, post office were otherwise available in the close vicinity of the respondents' property and in fact it was deposed to by the respondents' witness that by notification dated 5/04/1990 and 24/11/1988, the respondents' property was declared as industrial area and as rightly noted by the learned Reference Court, considering the location, the nature and other amenities available, the respondents' acquired land had potential to be utilised for residential and industrial purpose. 6. The sale deeds produced by the respondents were marked Exhibit AW1/D, Exhibit AW1/E, Exhibit AW1/F and Exhibit AW1/G. The first sale deed was in respect of a plot admeasuring 405 sq. mts. sold at the rate of Rs. 370/- per sq. mt., the second was in respect of a plot of 1223 sq. mts. sold at the rate of Rs. 280/- per sq. mt., the third was in respect of a plot of 300 sq. mts. sold at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. mt. and the fourth was in respect of a plot of 500 sq. mts. sold at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. mt. 7. We have heard learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties. At the time of hearing, a layout plan was produced on behalf of the respondents, showing the location of the plots of the different sale deeds produced by the respondents, in relation to the respondents' acquired property, which was not disputed on behalf of the appellants. The learned Reference Court ignored the sale deed Exhibit AW1/G stating that the price of land sold therein also 4 included the value of the house existing in the said plot. Learned Reference Court noted that the sale deed Exhibit AW1/D was closer to Mapusa town as compared to the acquired property and yet used the same as the guide for the purpose of fixing the compensation payable to the respondents after taking a deduction of 60% from the sale price. 8. The contention of the appellants is that the sale deed of plot Exhibit AW1/D could not have been considered as a guide, as the plot was located in Mapusa town, within the jurisdiction of Mapusa Municipal Council while the acquired property was situated far away from Mapusa and, in our view, it is rightly so. The plots of sale deeds Exhibit AW1/D dated 12/05/1993, Exhibit AW1/E dated 22/04/1993, Exhibit AW1/F dated 27/10/1986 were admittedly plots which were located more or less at a distance of about 1.5 kms. from Mapusa Municipal Market and within the jurisdiction of Mapusa Municipal Council, while the land of Exhibit AW1/G was situated at a distance of about 2.5 kms. from Mapusa Municipal Market and presumably within the jurisdiction of the Cuncholim Panchayat and thus it was a land situated much closer to the acquired property of the respondents, compared to the plots of other sale deeds. The sale deed Exhibit AW1/G dated 23/03/1990 shows that it was of two developed plots of 250 sq. mts. each, adjacent to a road and the land of which were sold for the price of Rs. 150/- per sq. mt. each. Reading of the sale deed Exhibit AW1/G shows that what was actually sold was land, 5 and not land along with the house. There was also no cross-examination of the applicants' witness as regards the existence of the house. There is also no evidence to show in which of the two plots it was located. The mentioning of an old dwelling house in the entire area of 500 sq. mts. sold by virtue of the said sale deed Exhibit AW1/G was just incidental and, therefore in our view, the learned Reference Court was not justified in ignoring the sale deed Exhibit AW1/G for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land when the same was close not only in terms of distance but also in period of time. 9. Although there are different methods for arriving at the market value of the acquired land, it is now well settled that comparable sales instance method of valuation is preferred to other methods of valuation, because it furnishes the evidence of the market value of the acquired land which a willing purchaser would pay if it had been sold in the open market at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. But before that is done there are certain factors which are required to be complied with and these factors are that the sale must be the genuine transaction, the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of the said notification, the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land and must also be similar and comparable. If these factors are satisfied, there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by sale 6 deeds be not given for the acquired land and in case there are dissimilarities as regards location, shape, size, nature of land, etc. it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation depending upon the disadvantages attached to it. In doing so, some guesswork is always permissible but what is impermissible are feats of imagination and misplaced sympathies. 10. Admittedly, the property sold vide Exhibit AW1/G was about three years prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in this case. Taking note of ever increasing prices of land, and giving a notional increase of 10%, the price of the sale deed plot Exhibit AW1/G would work out to Rs. 195/- in the year of acquisition. The plots of sale deed Exhibit AW1/G were almost developed plots located side by side and adjacent to a road, while the acquired property was a large parcel of land at a little distance from the said bypass and with survey no. 108 in between. The plot of sale deed Exhibit AW1/G was adjoining the road. It is common knowledge that when a large track of land is to be developed, land is required to be set apart for roads, drainage and other amenities and not only that when layout is approved and plots are made, considerable time is taken to sell the same in the market and on that count deductions are also required to be made. Cost of development could range from 20 to 30 percent depending on the nature of the land, its situation, and the stage of development, etc. (See Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha etc. V/s Amrutsar Improvement Transport & Ors. reported in AIR 1982 SC 7 940). Considering the facts of this case including the largeness of the acquired land and the disadvantages it had as compared to the plot of sale deed Exhibit AW1/G, a deduction of at least 30% would be required to be made so as to assess the fair market value of the acquired land and when such a deduction is made the price payable to the respondents works out to Rs. 136.5 per sq. mt., which, in our view, would be the fair market value of the acquired land. 11. In view of the above, we allow the appeal partly and modify the impugned award and fix the compensation payable to the respondents at Rs. 136.5 per sq. mt. with all consequential statutory benefits, with no order as to costs. SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-