1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 1/2003. 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer (N), Goa Tillari Irrigation Development Corporation, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez – Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division VI, Irrigation Department, Now under G.T.I.D.C., W.D. VIII, T.I.P. Complex, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez – Goa. ... Appellants V/s 1. Mr. Narendra Ramnath Halarnekar, 2. Mr. Meghashyam Ramnath Halarnekar, 3. Mr. Nilkanth Ramnath Halarnekar, All resident of H. No. 396, Tarvado, Colvale, Bardez, Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. None for the Respondents though served. 2 Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2010 O R A L J U D G M E N T By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 13.9.2002 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No. 51/1998 partly allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ( 'The Act' for short). 2. Vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act which was published in the Official Gazette dated 2.1.1992, the government acquired lands of several persons for public purpose. An area of 510 square metres of survey Nos. 200/2 and 199/1 of Colvale village of Bardez Taluka belonging to the respondents was part of the acquired land. The acquired land was partly bharad land and partly paddy field and was level land bounded on three sides by landed property and on the fourth side by nallah. The respondents claimed Rs. 80/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land. On 1.7.1992 the Special Land Acquisition Officer (The SLAO) awarded Rs. 10/- per square metre in respect of the 3 acquired land. The respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs. 80/- per square metre. 3. In Land acquisition Case No. 51/1998 before Addl. District Judge, Mapusa the respondents examined Meghasham Halarnkar, respondent No. 2. He produced Sale Deed dated 27.3.1990 at exhibit 20 by which an area of 1950 square metres alongwith the dilapidated structure was sold for Rs. 1,50,000/-. At the instance of the appellants in the course of cross-examination, the respondent No. 2 produced Sale Deed dated 20.2.1987 at exhibit 21 by which the respondents had purchased property bearing Survey Nos. 199/1 and 200/2 for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. On behalf of the appellants, Shri T. A. Atchutan, Asst. Engineer Irrigation was examined. The reference court relied upon exhibit 20 and after deducting 40%, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 28 per square metre. Aggrieved by the grant of higher compensation, the appellants have filed present appeal. 4. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants submitted that the reference court ought to have relied upon the Sale Deed at exhibit 21 by which the respondents had 4 purchased the entire property bearing survey Nos. 199/1 and 200/2 since the acquired land was part of the sale deed land. Mr. Shirodkar further submitted that the reference court could not have preferred to rely upon exhibit 20 which was in respect of the plot of land with a dilapidated structure which was not similar to the acquired land. He further submitted that once the sale deed in respect of the very same property which was acquired was placed on record, the same afforded the best evidence for fixing the market price for the said land. He further submitted that although the exact area has not been mentioned in exhibit 21 considering the survey records in respect of property bearing survey Nos. 199/1 and 200/2, it is evident that vide sale deed at exhibit 21 both the properties bearing these survey numbers were purchased by the respondents in the year 1987 at the rate of Rs. 4.06 per square metre. He therefore submitted that even if escalation of 10% per annum on compounding basis is considered, the market rate of the acquired land would not be more than Rs. 7/- per square metre as on the date of publication of Section 4 notification. He, therefore, submitted that the reference court erred in enhancing the compensation. 5 5. As stated above, the respondents have chosen not to put in appearance inspite of service. 6. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Shirodkar and perused the records. 7. In view of the submissions made by Mr. G. Shirodkar, and the findings given by the reference court, the following point arises for determination: Whether the compensation granted by the reference court at the rate of Rs. 28/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land is just and fair? If not, what compensation the respondent is entitled to? 8. As stated above, the respondent No. 2 was examined on behalf of the respondents who produced two sale deeds. Sale deed at exhibit 20 dated 27.3.1992 in respect of an area of 1950 square metres was sold at Rs. 1,50,000/-. The sale deed discloses that there was a dilapidated structure which was also sold along with the land. Sale deed at exhibit 21 was in respect of property bearing Survey Nos. 199/1 and 200/2. Although the area was not 6 specifically mentioned in the sale deed, the respondent No. 2 admitted in cross-examination that the area purchased was 4325 square metres. This being the position, it is evident that the respondent has purchased the two properties bearing above referred survey numbers at the rate of Rs. 4.06 per square metres. The reference court chose to place reliance on exhibit 21 on the ground that it was comparable sale instance. The reference court has not given any reason why no reliance is placed on exhibit 21. 9. It is well settled that the price mentioned in the sale deed in respect of the property, a part of which is acquired by the government affords the best evidence to fix market rate of the acquired land. In the present case though initially the respondents did not produce the sale deed in respect of Survey nos. 199/1 and 200/2 at the instance of the appellants, the respondent no. 2 in the course of his cross examination produced sale deed at exhibit 20. Since the respondents themselves had purchased the properties bearing survey Nos. 199/1 and 200/2 by sale deed dated 20.2.1987, the same affords the best evidence to fix the market rate of the acquired land which was a part of the entire property purchased by sale deed at exhibit 20. In my considered opinion, therefore, the 7 reference court ought to have placed reliance on the sale deed at exhibit 21 in preference to exhibit 20. Since the evidence in respect of the sale price of the acquired land in the year 1987 was available, the reference court ought to have placed reliance on exhibit 21 for fixing the market rate of the acquired land. The reference court, without any cogent reason chose not to rely upon exhibit 21. Considering the price mentioned in the sale deed at exhibit 21 which was executed on 20.2.1987, the market rate of the acquired land which was acquired pursuant to the notification published on 2.1.1992, after considering yearly increase of price at 10% on compounding basis works out to Rs. 7/- per square metre. 10. No doubt, the respondent No. 2 in his evidence has deposed about the existence of certain facilities like Nath Pai Memorial School, Primary Health Centre, Colvale, petrol pump in the vicinity of the acquired land. But this evidence would not advance the case of the respondent in view of the fact that the respondents purchased the entire property by sale deed at exhibit 21 at the rate of Rs. 4.04 per square metre. In my considered opinion therefore, considering the sale price mentioned in the sale deed at exhibit 21, the compensation fixed by the SLAO at the rate 8 of Rs. 10/- per square metre cannot be termed as inadequate justifying grant of higher compensation by the reference court. 11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 13.9.2002 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No. 51/1998 is quashed and set aside and consequently the reference stands rejected. 12. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. MF/-