1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NOS. 241 AND 242 OF 2003 FIRST APPEAL NO.241 OF 2003 1. State of Goa, through the Dy. Collector & SDO, Ponda, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XVIII (R), PWD, Ponda,Goa .. Appellants V e r s u s Smt. Indirabai Venkatesh Bhat Dhavalikar C/o. Anant Raghunath Savoikar, Vantem Sattari, P. O. Advoi, Sattari, Goa. ... Respondent Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2003 1. State of Goa, through the Dy. Collector & SDO, Ponda, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XVIII (R), PWD, Ponda, Goa. .. Appellants V e r s u s 1. Shri Narayan Sadashiv Bhat Dhavalikar, since deceased through his LR's 1. Smt. Vijaya Narayan Bhat Dhavalikar, 2. Shri Mukund Narayan Bhat Dhavalikar 2 3. Shri Manguesh Narayan Bhat Dhavalikar 4. Shri Mahesh Narayan Bhat Dhavalikar All residents of Dhavli, Quela, Ponda, Goa ... Respondents Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Respondents though served, absent. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 15 th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since the challenge in both these appeals is to the judgments and awards dealing with the acquisition of the same land. 2. Vide notification dated 6th November, 1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ('The Act' for short) which was published in the official gazette on 7th November, 1991, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for public purpose namely Ponda By-pass road. An are admeasuring 2050 square meters from Survey No.197/3 was part of the acquired land. In the said land, the respondents in F.A. No.241/2003 are entitled to 1/5th share; whereas the respondents in F.A. No.242/2003 are entitled to 3 3/5th share. The respondents in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants' for short) claimed Rs. 500/- per square meter. The Land Acquisition Officer ('The LAO') passed award dated 30th November, 1992 and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.25/- per square meter. 3. The claimants sought references under Section 18 of the Act. In F.A. No.241/2003, judgment and award dated 30th April, 2003 in Land Acquisition Case No.88/98 is challenged. The Claimants in the said case, examined Anant Sawaikar- AW1, Bhaskar Khandeparkar, Architect- AW2. On behalf of LAO, Pundalik Tukaram Pakar- RW1 was examined. 4. In Land Acquisition Case No.96/1998, the claimants examined two witnesses namely Mukund Dhavalikar-AW1, Shivanand Sukthankar-AW2. On behalf of LAO, Pundalik Tukaram Pakar- RW1 was examined. F.A. No.242/2003 has been filed challenging judgment and award dated 30th April, 2003 passed in the said case. 5. In both the cases, the claimants relied upon sale deed dated 30th October, 1990 -Exh. AW1/C by which plot admeasuring 348 square meters situated at a distance of 4 about 600 to 700 square meters from the acquired land was sold at Rs.225/-per square meter. They also relied upon another sale deed dated 20th January, 1992 exhibit AW1/D by which a developed plot of 325 square meters, was sold at the rate of Rs.350/- per square meter. 6. In Land Acquisition Case No.96/1998, the claimants examined Bhaskar Khandeparkar, who produced report AW1/A. He valued the acquired land at the rate of Rs.425/- per square meter. 7. The Reference Court placed reliance upon sale deed dated 30th October, 1990- exhibit AW1/C on the ground that the same was comparable sale instance and deducted 40% on the ground that the acquired land was undeveloped plot of land whereas the sale deed plot was developed plot. The Reference Court thereafter, deducted 40% on the ground that the sale deed plot was closer to the highway as compared to the acquired land and was better located in as much as there were commercial buildings closer to the sale deed plot as compared to the acquired land. The Reference Court also took into consideration that the sale deed plot was a small plot of land; whereas the acquired land was comparatively bigger. The Reference Court deducted 40% 5 and arrived at the market rate of Rs. 80/- per square meter. 8. Mr. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants in both the appeals submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the sale deed dated 30th October, 1990 for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land since the same could not be said to be comparable sale instance. He further submitted that even if the Reference Court were to place reliance upon the said sale deed, the Reference Court ought to have made higher deductions. He submitted that the judgments and awards in both the appeals be set aside and the compensation awarded by the LAO be maintained. 9. Per contra, Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the respondents in F.A. No.241/2003 supported the impugned judgment and award. In F.A. No.242/2003, the respondents have chosen not to put in appearance although they have been served. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 11. In view of the findings recorded and the 6 submissions made, the following point arises for determination in the appeal : “Whether the Reference Court has erred in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.80/- per square meter ?” 12. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, held that the acquired land was accessible by two roads i.e. one leading to Ponda city and the other road leading to Dhavali market. The Government primary school and Bhagawati temple were at a distance of about 50 meters from the acquired land. Samiti Higher Secondary School, Syndicate Bank etc. were within the radius of 700 meters from the acquired land. The other facilities like school, colleges, shops, hospital were situated in Ponda at a distance of about 1 to 2 Kilometers from the acquired land. 13. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, I find that the finding recorded by the Reference Court about the facilities available to the acquired land cannot be faulted. 14. Next question which arises for consideration is 7 whether the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance on the sale deed dated 30th October, 1990 at exhibit AW1/C for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land. 15. The plot in the sale deed exhibit AW1/C as deposed by AW1-Sawaikar was situated at a distance of about 600 to 700 meters away from the acquired land and 300 to 400 meters away from the Margao-Ponda road. Moreover, the sale deed was executed prior to issuance of Section 4 notification; whereas the sale deed dated 20th January, 1992 was executed post Section 4 notification. This being the position, in my opinion, the Reference Court was fully justified in placing reliance upon the said sale deed for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land. 16. The Reference Court deducted 40 % from the price mentioned in the sale deed on the ground that the sale deed plot was developed plot; whereas the acquired land was undeveloped. Thereafter, the Reference Court deducted 40 % on the following grounds : (i) Largeness of the acquired land . (ii) Sale deed plot was closer to highway as compared to the acquired land. (iii) Sale deed plot was better located since 8 there were commercial buildings closer to the sale deed plot. The Reference Court thereafter, arrived at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square meter. 17. I do not find any illegality having been committed by the Reference Court while fixing the market rate of the acquired land on the basis of the sale deed plot - exhibit AW1/ C. In my opinion, the deduction of 40% on the first count and another 40 % on the second count as mentioned above, cannot be faulted. In my opinion, the market rate of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unreasonable warranting interference by this Court in the appeals preferred against the impugned judgments and awards. 18. In the result, therefore, I do not find merit in both the appeals. Consequently, the appeals stand dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA