1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA First Appeal No.176 of 2003 1. Shri Naguesh Govind Alvani, 2. Smt. Mangala Naguesh Alvani, both resident of Priol, P.O. Mardol – Goa. ....... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Ponda, Goa, 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division XV (NH), P.W.D., Ponda, Goa. ...... Respondents Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. A. Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. First Appeal No.224 of 2003 1. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. (Cell), Altinho, Panaji-Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, W.D. XV (NH), P.W.D., Ponda-Goa. .... Appellants V e r s u s 2 1. Shri Naguesh Govind Alvani, 2. Smt. Mangala Naguesh Alvani, both residents of Priol, P.O. Mondol-Goa. .... Respondents. Mr. A. Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants Mr. A.F. Diniz, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 22nd September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: Both these appeals are disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of the same acquisition. 2. The appellants in First Appeal No.176 of 2003 have filed the present appeal aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation granted by the Reference Court. Whereas, First Appeal No.224 of 2003 has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the higher compensation granted by the Reference Court. 3. Vide Notification dated 16/08/1991 issued 3 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (“The Act” for short) which was published in Official Gazette dated 18/10/1991, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for the purpose of re-alignment at Mardol,-Ponda road on National Highway 4A (Mardol Bye-pass) in Ponda Taluka. An area admeasuring 2275 sq.metres from survey no.20/2 of village Veling in Ponda belonging to the appellants in First Appeal No.176 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) was part of the acquired land. The claimants claimed Rs.300/- per sq.metre. The Land Acquisition Officer made award on 20/12/1994 and awarded Rs.30/- per sq.metre. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.300/- per sq.metre. 4. In Land Acquisition Case no.9/1999 before the Additional District Judge, Damodar Alvani, son of 4 claimant no.1 examined himself. He relied upon three sale deeds; two sale deeds were executed on 26/4/1995 and 10/10/1991 for Rs.261/- and Rs.225/- per sq.metre, respectively. He also placed reliance on sale deed dated 19/6/1986 i.e. (Exhibit 16) by which an area of 145.68 sq.metres from survey number 320 sq.metres was sold by claimant no.1 at the rate of Rs.168/- per sq.metre. He also deposed that the acquired land was close to famous temples such as Mahalsa and Mangeshi which are of tourist attraction and that the acquired land was in a settlement zone and facilities such as telephone, water and electricity were available. The industrial estates of Kundaim and Madkaim were situated at a distance of 5 to 6 kms from the acquired land. School, post office, banks, primary school were in the radius of 600 metres. 5. The Reference Court placed reliance upon sale deed dated 11/6/1986 (Exhibit 16) and deducted 40% on 5 the ground that the sale deed plot was developed , whereas the acquired land was not developed. The Reference Court further deducted 40% on the ground that the sale deed plot was smaller plot as compared to the acquired land and and it was also abutting the National Highway and on the other side by 8 metres wide internal road, which advantages the acquired land did not have. The Reference Court thereafter took into consideration the fact that the sale deed was executed a couple of years prior to the date of acquisition and consequently came to the figure of Rs.56/- per sq.metre. 6. Mr. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Reference Court ought to have granted escalation at the rate of 10% per year on compounding basis and thereafter ought to have made deductions. He further submitted that deduction of 40% made for the purpose of development is on higher side and 6 in any case deduction of 40% on the ground that the acquired land was bigger as compared to the sale deed plot is patently unsustainable. He further submitted that the finding recorded by the Reference Court that the acquired land was not abutting the National Highway is patently unsustainable in as much as having regard to the location of the acquired land, it is evident that it was abutting the National Highway. He therefore submitted that the appellants/claimants be granted compensation at the rate of Rs.160/- per sq.metre which the claimants have claimed in the appeal. In support of his submissions Mr. Diniz placed reliance on the case of M.S.N. Nadaf since dead through Lrs, and others Vs. Special Land Acqusition Officer (2004) DGLS (Soft.) 37. 7. Per contra, Mr. Kakodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants in First Appeal No. 224 of 2003 submitted that the Reference Court ought to 7 have deducted 67% for the purpose of development and 40% for the purpose of largeness of the acquired land and to that extent the Reference Court has patently erred and granted Rs.56/- per sq.metre. In support of his submissions Mr. Kakodkar placed reliance on the case of Subh Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 444. 8. In view of the rival submissions, the following point arises for determination in the appeal: Whether the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.56/- per sq.metre fixed by the Reference Court is just and proper ? If not what compensation the claimants are entitled to? 9. As stated above, the Reference Court placed reliance upon sale deed dated 19/6/1986 by which the 8 claimant no.1 had sold an area admeasuring 320 sq.metres at the rate of Rs.145.,68 per sq.metre. Since reliance has been placed on the sale deed in respect of part of the same land which was acquired, the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance upon the said sale deed. 10. Since the sale deed was executed on 19/6/1986 and notification under Section 4 was published on 10/10/1991, the market rate of the land forming part of the sale deed plot by escalating the price at 10% per annum on compounding basis works out to Rs.240/- per sq.metre since the notification has been published after a period of almost 5 years and 4 months. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Kakodkar that the escalation could at the most be at the rate of 5%. The Apex Court in a number of judgments has pointed out that normal escalation should be at the rate of 10% per annum. I do not find any reason to hold that the claimants are not entitled to escalation of 9 10% per annum having regard to the location of the acquired land. 11. The next question which arises for consideration in the appeal is what deduction should be made from the said price in order to determine the market price of the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale deed plot Exhibit AW1/C was 320 sq.metres, whereas the acquired land was 2275 sq.metres. The claimants were bound to spend substantial amount on the development of the acquired land in case they had to sub-divide the property into plots and effect sale of the said plots. In my opinion, the appropriate deduction would be 40%. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Kakodkar that the deduction of 67% should be made in terms of judgment in the case of Subh Ram (supra). There can be no mathematical formula in respect of deduction and the percentage of 10 deduction depends upon various factors like area of the land acquired, nature of the land, etc. In so far as deduction for largeness of the acquired land and that the acquired land did not have the advantage of 10 metres internal road is concerned, I am of the opinion that the appropriate deduction would be 20%. The Reference Court has erred in holding that the acquired land did not have advantage of abutting National Highway. There was no evidence before the Reference Court to record this finding and having regard to the location of the acquired land the Reference Court could not have taken this factor into consideration for the purpose of making deduction. Thus, the market rate of the acquired land on the date of publication of Section 4 notification works out to Rs. 115.20 which is rounded to Rs.115/-. 13. In view of the above, the claimants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.115/- per 11 sq.metre. Needless to mention that the claimants are also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. 14. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-