1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 198/2004. 1. Deputy Collector (L.A.) South Goa, Margao. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division, XXV (Roads), PWD, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. … Appellants. V/s Shri Milind Vaman Sinai Curchorcar, Shirfond, Curchorem, Goa. … Respondent. Ms. S. Mordekar, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : F. M. REIS , J. DATE : 7 th October 2010 . ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 31.12.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge, South Goa, 2 Margao in LAC No. 16/2003. 2. The appellants pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the said Act) acquired an area of 440 sq. metres from the property surveyed under No. 34/3 from village Curchorem for the purpose of construction of road. The notification was dated 31.3.2000 published in the Official Gazette on 20.4.2000. The Land Acquisition Officer ( LAO for short) by an award dated 14.10.2002 offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent filed reference under the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. metre. The Reference Court by judgment and award dated 31.12.2003 fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 162/- per sq. metre. 3. The learned Addl. Government Advocate has assailed the judgment and submitted that there is no evidence on record adduced by the respondent to seek an enhancement to the compensation awarded by the LAO. The learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the respondents failed to adduce any evidence to 3 substantiate that the price offered by the LAO was inadequate. She further pointed out that the reference court has relied upon the judgment and award at exhibit 15 which land is not at all comparable with the land acquired in the present case. The Learned Government Advocate took me to the evidence on record and submitted that there is no proper appreciation of evidence while passing the judgment. 4. On the other hand, Mr. R. G. Ramani learned Counsel of the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that besides exhibit 15 the Reference Court has also relied upon the judgment in LAC No. 213/1990 which land was located in the vicinity of the acquired land. He further submitted that the Reference Court has fixed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of well settled principles of law in determining the market value of the acquired land under section 23 of the Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has given adequate deductions and has rightly come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land is at the rate of Rs. 162/- per sq. metre. The learned Counsel further submitted that the acquired land can fetch much higher value. 4 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point arises for my determination in the present Appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 162/- per sq. metre? 6. In support of the claim for enhancement, the respondent has examined Milind Vaman Kudchadkar as Aw1. He has stated in his affidavit that the acquired land, belonging to him is surveyed under No. 34/3 and has an area of 440 sq. metres. He has further stated that the acquired land is located adjacent to the main road and also at the junction of 4 roads leading from Curchorem, Quepem, Sanguem and Xelvona. He has further stated that there were 15 coconut trees in the acquired land and the land was levelled. He has stated that the Kadamba bus stand is situated at a distance of 400 metres and that the land which was acquired for the said purpose was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 55/- per sq. metre. He has further stated that the acquired land is in the settlement zone and as 5 such claimed compensation of Rs. 300/- per sq. metre for the land acquired. He has produced the valuation report as well as sale deed dated 30.9.1998 in respect of a property which sale instance was registered on 9.10.1998. 7. In cross examination he has stated that the land which was the subject matter of acquisition in LAC No. 213/1990 was at a distance of 1.2 kms. from the acquired land. He further stated that the land acquired is running from North to South direction and that the existing pathway is in the property of his uncle and both the lands are of the same level. 8. The valuer Shri K. P. Bhangui has prepared the valuation report and stated that according to his opinion the land acquired has a value of Rs. 400/- per sq. metre. In his affidavit he has stated that he had visited the site on 7.7.2003. In his cross examination he has stated that the acquired land is abutting the existing access. He has further stated that the sale deed plot has a large frontage as compared to the acquired land and that the land which have a larger frontage normally fetch a higher price as compared to the plot which does not have such frontage. 6 9. The respondent examined Shri P. T. Pednekar who is a Junior Engineer. He has stated that the land of the respondent was acquired for construction of the road and there was a traditional access passing through the property surveyed under No. 34/3. In cross examination he has admitted that the survey records do not depict any such access. 10. The Reference Court after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the sale deed at exhibit 14 is in respect of land which was in the same locality wherein land admeasuring 278 sq. metres was sold at the rate of Rs. 311 per sq. metre from the property surveyed under No. 17/3 of Curchorem village. The sale deed plot and the acquired land are in the same village. The learned Judge has further observed that both the lands are similar in nature having similar amenities, advantages and disadvantages. The learned judge also observed that the genuineness of the said sale deed is not disputed by the appellants. After deducting 40% from the said value, as the acquired land was undeveloped, the Reference Court has fixed the compensation at Rs. 186/- per sq. metre. A further deduction of 25% has been effected on the ground 7 that the sale deed plot is adjoining the road and has large frontage and as such, the amount works out to Rs. 139/- per sq. metre. Considering that the sale deed was executed in the year 1998 and the notification under section 4 was published in the year 2000 after giving escalation of 10% per annum the market value has been worked out to Rs. 162/- per sq. metre. The Reference Court found that the evidence on record demonstrates that the sale deed plot at exhibit 14 is comparable with the land acquired. The dissimilarities of the two properties that the sale deed plot has a large frontage and is adjoining the road, have been considered by the Reference Court to arrive at the figure of Rs. 162/- per sq. metre. From the evidence on record, I find that both the lands have similar features and potentialities. No doubt the sale deed plot was a developed plot but after making suitable deductions on account of the dissimilarities, the market value of the acquired land has been rightly worked out by the Reference Court. 11. Apart from relying on the said sale instances, the Reference Court has also worked the value on the basis of the award at exhibit 15. The Reference Court in the said acquisition had fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs 125/- per sq. metre. The land 8 which is subject matter of said acquisition is located in the vicinity of the acquired land and at a distance of 1.2 kms. from his property as stated by AW1. Considering that the land which was acquired therein was in the year 1984 and the present notification is of the year 2000 the Reference Court after giving necessary escalation of 10% has come to the conclusion that the market value works out to Rs. 325/- per sq. metre. The land which was subject matter of said acquisition appears to be in the heart of the town. The Reference Court after deduction of 50% has come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land works out to Rs. 162/- per sq. metre. Considering the said sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court, I find no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in fixing the market value at Rs. 162/- per sq. metre. The Reference Court has applied the well settled principles of law in fixing the market value and effecting the requisite deductions to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. There is no error committed by the Reference Court, and the market value fixed cannot be said to be excessive or unjust. The sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court is a comparable sale instance and no evidence has been adduced by the appellants to show that the price offered by the LAO was adequate. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 9 12. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. MF/-