1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 211/2004. 1. Deputy Collector (L.A.) Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D.VI (R-S) P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao, Goa. … Appellants. V/s Shri Keshav Sinai Kunde, r/o H. No. 8, Laxmi Nivas, Comba, Margao, Goa. (Expired represented by legal heirs) 1.a. Smt. Anusuya Keshav Kunde, widow, 1.b. Mr. Divakar Keshav Kunde, son & his wife, 1.c. Mrs. Neela Divakar Kunde, 1.d. Mr. Prabhakar Keshav Kunde, son & his wife 1.e. Mrs. Neeta Prabhakar Kunde, 1.f. Mr. Kamalakar Keshav Kunde, son & his wife, 1.g. Mrs. Jyoti Kamalakar Kunde, All are resident of H.No.8, Laxmi Nivas, Comba, Margao. 2 1.h. Mrs. Nima Suhas Nadkarani, daughter & her husband, 1.i. Dr. Suhas N. Nadkarni, both are resident of Vidhyanagar, Margao, Goa. … Respondents. (All above are registered addresses of the parties) Ms. Susan Linhares, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : F. M. REIS , J. DATE : 14 th October 2010 . ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 20.9.2003, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao in LAC No. 32/2002. 2. The appellants by notification dated 3.10.1991 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Official Gazette dated 27.7.1992 sought to acquire land belonging to the respondents admeasuring 5 sq. metres from survey No. 428/2 and 1500 sq. metres from survey No. 427/1 of village Cuncolim for the purpose of construction of Cotamol road at 3 Cuncolim village of Salcete Taluka. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO for short) by award dated 12.1.1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2/- per sq. metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed an amount of Rs. 70/- per sq. metre for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 20.9.2003, the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 9/- per sq. metre. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants preferred the present appeal. 4. The learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed into the said judgment and submitted that the sale instance relied upon by the respondents at exhibit 15 is not at all comparable with the land acquired. The learned Addl. Government Advocate further submitted that there is no evidence adduced by the respondents to compare the land acquired vis a vis the sale deed plot. She has further submitted that though the sale deed was in respect of the same property, however there is no comparability with the land acquired. She has further submitted that there is no evidence 4 produced by the respondents to show that both the lands are similar. The learned Addl. Government Advocate further submitted that the respondents have failed to adduce evidence to substantiate their claim that the price offered by the LAO was inadequate. She further submitted that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside. 5. The respondents though served failed to remain present nor were represented by any Counsel. 6. In support of their claim for enhancement of compensation, the respondents had examined as AW1 Shri Prabhakar Keshav Kunde. He has stated that the property belonging to the respondents was comprising of residential house, coconut plantation, paddy field and other fruit bearing trees. He has further stated that the appellants have acquired land from the said property surveyed under No. 428/2 and 427/1 of Cuncolim village. He has further stated that the land acquired was suitable for construction purpose as it is in the heart of the limits of the Cuncolim Muncipality. He has further stated that his deceased parents by; sale deed dated 26.7.1990 sold a portion of the said property admeasuring 320.25 sq. metres to Shri Ankush Baban Naik for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- which works out to 5 Rs. 60/- per sq. metre. He has further stated that considering the price increase at 10%, the price of the acquired land should have been fixed at Rs. 70/- per sq. metre. He has also produced the valuation report of Shri Vikas Dessai in support of his claim for enhancement. In cross examination he has stated that his property was accessible by another road. He has further stated that there are 15 to 20 houses in an unacquired portion of the land bearing survey No. 427/1 and 428/2. He has further stated that the road which has been constructed is on the existing katcha road. 7. The learned Judge whilst appreciating the evidence on record has found that the road which was under construction was on the same access which was existing in the acquired land. The learned Judge also found that in view of the restrictions with regard to the acquired portion of the acquired land the same could not be used for construction purpose and as such deducted 85% in fixing the market value of the acquired land and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 9/- per sq. metre. 8. Having perused the records, there is no dispute that the sale instance produced by the respondents was in regard to the same 6 property which was the subject matter of the acquisition. The Reference court after considering that the acquired portion of the land was being used as traditional katcha road has deducted 85% so as to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 9/- per sq. metre. There is no cross objection filed by the respondents. As such, I find that there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 9/- per sq. metre after effecting deductions of 85%. As the respondents have failed to file any cross objections and have not remained present at the time of hearing, the question of ascertaining whether the deductions done by the Reference Court are in excess need not be gone into. In any event, the price fixed by the Reference Court cannot be said to be excessive. As such, no interference is called for in the judgment of the Reference Court. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed with costs. F. M. REIS, J MF/-