:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 334 OF 2003 1. Dy. Collector ( L. A.) Margao Goa. 2. The Director of Tourism, Panaji Goa. …. Appellants V e r s u s 1. Shri Rajan alias Rajendra Dessai, 2. Shri Nitis Dessai, both residing at Damodar Housing Society, Building No.3/1, Aquem, Alto,Margao Goa. …. Respondents Mr. V. Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J DATE : 6 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 . ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 30.8.2003 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/2001 by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao. :2: 2. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” ) the land admeasuring 6750 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 16/4 of Village Surla was acquired for providing facilities to tourist at Tamdi Surla, Sanguem Taluka. The notification was dated 17.04.1997 and published in the Official Gazette on 14.08.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 31.12.1999 and offered a compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per square metre for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed a sum of Rs.25/- per square metre for the land acquired besides a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of the value of the trees. By the impugned judgment and award dated 30.08.2003, the learned Reference Court fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre. The remaining claim of the respondents came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the respondents have failed to :3: adduce evidence to the effect that they are entitled for the enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and pointed out that the respondents have not produced any sale instance even from the adjoining Village so as to substantiate their claim that they are entitled for the enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has fixed the market value for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre without having support of any piece of evidence led by the respondents to establish the prevailing market value in the vicinity of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further submitted that though the notification fixing prices for stamp duty was of the year 2003 which has been produced by the respondents in support of their claim of enhancement of compensation nevertheless the Reference Court has failed to consider the notification in the present case was of the year 1997 and as such a deduction to that extent were not made by the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there was no basis for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per square :4: metre and as such the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri S. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record specially the report of the valuer and pointed out that the evidence has been adduced by the respondents to establish that the land acquired had potentiality of being used for tourism purpose. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court at para 8 of the impugned judgment has taken note of the fact of the potentiality of the said acquired land considering the topography of the land and the location and as such the amount fixed by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable. The learned Counsel further submitted that no sale instances have been produced by the respondents nevertheless it is well settled by this Court as well as the Apex Court that the guess work can be made on the basis of the material on record to fix a fair market value to the acquired land. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no ground for :5: interference in the impugned judgment and as such the appeal deserves to be rejected. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following point arises for my determination in the present case :- POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre for the land acquired ? 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and come to the conclusion at para 8 of the impugned judgment that the land acquired had potentiality of being used for tourism purpose and other facilities considering the location of the said land. With regard to the compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre, the Reference Court has relied upon the report of the valuer examined by the respondents. On perusal of the valuation report, I find that the valuer has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.25/- per square metre without any support of any sale instance to ascertain the price prevailing :6: in the vicinity of the acquired land. The said value fixed by the valuer is his opinion which is not binding on the Court. Apart from that, the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned judgment also noted that the valuer took into account the dissimilarities in the acquired land whilst fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.25/- per square metre. But however considering the notification produced by the respondents which is dated 19.06.2003, the minimum value of land fixed therein was Rs.25/- per square metre. In the peculiar facts of the case, considering the said notification was of the year 2003, and the notification in the present case was of the year 1997, I find that the Reference Court has not considered the said aspect whilst fixing the market value of the acquired land. Considering the said gap of nearly six years, the deductions of 20% would be just and appropriate. After such deductions, it comes to Rs.20/- per square metre. After deduction of 50%, the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.10/- per square metre. To that extent, the impugned judgment and award stands modified. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : :7: O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The modified compensation for the land acquired is fixed at Rs.10/- per square metre. (iii) Needless to say, the respondents would be entitled to the statutory benefits as awarded by the impugned judgment in accordance with law. (iv) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. F. M. REIS, J at*