AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U.V. Bakre, J.—Heard Mr. Afonso, learned Government Advocate for the appellants.
By the above appeal and cross objection, the judgment and award dated 31/01/2007 passed by the learned District Judge (3), Margao (reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 2003 has been challenged. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case.
Vide Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in Official Gazette dated 23/02/2000, the Government acquired land for construction and B/T of ring road from Margao�Quepem road from level crossing at Aquem to eastern bye pass including parking for vehicles in Margao city. This acquisition included land admeasuring 362 square meters of coconut land from survey no. 250/28 and paddy land admeasuring 1438 square meters from survey no. 250/29 both situated in the city of Margao of Salcete Taluka. Vide Award dated 05/02/2002, the learned Land Acquisition Officer ( L.A.O., for short) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square meter to the land bearing survey no. 250/28 and at the rate Rs. 14/- per square meter to the land bearing survey no. 250/29. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the learned L.A.O., the original applicant who was interested in the said acquired land made an application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act before L.A.O. which gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No. 9 of 2003.
The applicant claimed compensation for both the acquired lands at the rate Rs. 300/- per square meter. According to the applicant, the paddy field land had remained barren and uncultivated for last more than 25 years and consequently both the acquired lands had potentialities for being used for construction. The applicant further alleged that the acquired land was situated in the vicinity of developed area and was adjoining to Malbhat Market Complex and therefore had demand.
The applicant examined himself as AW1, Shri Menino Fernandes as AW2, a Civil Engineer by name Mahendra Kakule as AW3 and another Civil Engineer by name Shridhar Kamat as AW4. The applicant (AW1) produced sale deed dated 27/12/1999 as Exhibit 18; Award dated 31/08/2001 in Land Acquisition Case No. 348/1995 as Exhibit 19; Sale Deed dated 29/03/1993 as Exhibit 20; Sale Deed dated 16/02/1996 as Exhibit 21; survey plan of Chalta nos. 28 and 29 of P. T. Sheet No. 250 as Exhibit 22; Development Permission dated 26/09/1990 of SPDA in respect of chalta nos. 5, 6, and 7 of P. T. Sheet no. 263, as Exhibit 23; and NOC granted by South Central Railway for development of plots as Exhibit 24. AW2 produced Oral Judgment dated 16/06/2004, in First appeal No. 98/99, of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, as Exhibit 39; Oral Judgment dated dated 31/08/2004 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, in First Appeal No. 62/2002, as Exhibit 40 and Oral Judgment dated 01/09/2004, of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, in First Appeals No. 61 and 66 of 2002, as Exhibit 41. The Civil Engineer, Shri Mahendra Kakule (AW3) proved his valuation report which is at Exhibit 25. The respondents, however, did not examine any witness. During the course of arguments before the reference Court, the learned advocate for the applicant made it clear that the applicant does not base his claim on Exhibits 18, 20 and 21 above.
Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned reference Court found that the land which was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 348/95 decided by judgment dated 31/08/2001 by the reference Court (Exhibit 19) and against which First Appeal No. 61 of 2002 was filed before this High Court and decided by oral judgment dated 01/09/2004 (Exhibit 41), was comparable to the acquired land of the present case. In First Appeal No. 61/2002, the price of the acquired land was fixed at Rs. 170/- per square meter. However, the learned reference Court, for reasons mentioned in the Judgment, took the rate of Rs. 160/- per square meter as the basis and since it was found that there were certain minus factors attached to the acquired land, a deduction of 50% has been made in the said price of the land which was prevailing as on 27/06/1991. The notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act in respect of the acquired land, which was subject matter of First Appeal No. 61/2002, was published on 27/06/1991 whereas such notification in respect of the acquired land of the present case was published on 23/02/2000. The gap was about more than eight years. Considering yearly rise in the prices of the lands in the vicinity, the learned reference Court added 10% per annum, for eight years. Ultimately, the reference Court fixed the market value of both the acquired lands at Rs. 144/- per square meter and further granted all statutory benefits under the L. A. Act to the applicant as also costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the above Judgment and Award, the appellants have filed the appeal praying to set aside the award whereas the applicant has filed cross-objection for enhancing the compensation.
Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the acquired lands are situated in Navelim village whereas the land which was subject matter of the First Appeal no. 61 of 2002 was in the Margao city. He further submitted that the acquired land of the present case was already reserved for road in the Outline Development Plan. He read out the entire impugned judgment and award and submitted that there was no occasion for consideration of the said award in Land Acquisition Case no. 348 of 1995 and that there was no similarity in the lands and, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed and set aside.
I have gone through the entire material on record. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate for the appellants.
The point for determination is as to what should be the just and reasonable compensation for the acquired land.
A perusal of the Award of the learned Land Acquisition Officer which is produced by the respondents along with the reference shows that both the acquired lands were situated in the City of Margao of Salcete Taluka. Similarly, the survey plan at exhibit 22 reveals that the said land was situated in the city of Margao. In such circumstances, the submission of Mr. Afonso, learned Government Advocate that the acquired land was situated in Panchayat area of Navelim is not acceptable. The acquired land was situated in the city of Margao.
The evidence on record produced by the applicant reveals that the acquired land from Chalta no. 28 of P. T. Sheet no. 250 and Chalta no. 29 of P. T. Sheet no. 250 abut each other and both together adjoin Margao -Quepem road on one side and Konkan Railway property on the other side. The acquired land was part of a larger property belonging to the applicant. It was served with all facilities like tele-communication, water supply and electricity. There were amenities like Cinema theater, Banks, Church, shops, hospitals, schools, colleges, pharmacies, etc., all close by. Admittedly, the Victor Appollo Hospital was under construction at the relevant time, very close to the acquired land. It is seen from the Judgment and Award dated 31/08/2001 in L.A.C. No. 348 of 1995, that the acquired land of that case was belonging to the applicant and was situated in the city of Margao between Quepem-Margao road on one side and Konkan Railway line on the other side and the same included bund, uncultivated paddy land and partly bharad land. Therefore, it can be certainly said that the present acquired land which has bund and uncultivated and untenanted paddy field lying between Quepem-Margao road and Konkan Railway property is comparable to that of the land which is subject matter of the land in Land Acquisition Case No. 348 of 1995. The reference Court in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 348/1995 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 268/- per square meter for all three kinds of land with all the statutory benefits under the L. A. Act. The respondents therein had filed the First Appeal No. 61/2002, before this Court. In said First Appeal No. 61 of 2002, vide judgment dated 01/09/2004, the learned Division Bench of this Court has observed that the land which was subject matter of that appeal was partly bharad, partly bund and partly uncultivated paddy field and was situated between the railway line on one side and abutting to Margao Quepem road on the other side. It was found that the applicant had obtained necessary provisional permissions for development of his land and had also incurred substantial expenditure towards development of the land. The Division Bench of this Court held that the applicant could be awarded the same compensation as was fixed by the learned reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 347/1995 as upheld by the High Court in First Appeal No. 98 of 1999, but with some additions because of some development carried out by the applicant. In Land Acquisition Case No. 347/1995, the compensation fixed was at the rate of Rs. 160/- per square meter. The learned Division Bench of this Court, therefore, allowed the appeal partly and modified the judgment and award of the reference Court and reduced the compensation to Rs. 170/- per square meter. That was the applicant''s land in which he had a house and for which land provisional development permission was already obtained and some expenditure was incurred.
The Judgment in First Appeal No. 61/2004 read with that in First Appeal No. 98/1999 was rightly considered by the reference Court for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired land. The learned reference Court found that admittedly in the present case the applicant had not obtained necessary provisional permissions for development of the acquired land nor had incurred any expenditure for development of the same. Learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore had urged before the reference Court to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 160/- per square meter, as awarded in Land Acquisition Case No. 347/1995 and confirmed by Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 98 of 1999. The reference Court therefore took Rs. 160/- per square meter as the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land, and rightly so. It is noticed that the learned reference Court found that there were some minus factors to the acquired land of the present case. Such minus factors have been discussed in detail by the reference Court and the same are borne out from the records and I have no hesitation to agree with the same. The reference Court, therefore, rightly gave deduction of 50% and since there was gap of about eight years, it gave increase of 10% per year, for that period. The market value of the acquired land has thus been fixed at Rs. 144/- per square meter. In my considered view, the reference Court has rightly relied upon the judgments dated 01/09/2004 and 16/06/2004 passed by Division Bench of this Court in said First Appeals No. 61/2004 and 98/1999. The Reference Court has adequately considered the minus factors and therefore has made appropriate deduction. No interference with the impugned Judgment and Award is called for. The point for determination, therefore gets answered, accordingly. Hence there is no merit in the First Appeal No.237/2007, filed by the respondents.
The applicant as well as his counsel is absent. Hence, the cross-objection No. 22/2008 gets dismissed for default and for non-prosecution.
The Appeal and Cross Objection stand dismissed and disposed of accordingly.