Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer vs Milagres da Costa Milagres da Costa Vs Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer

T.V. Nalawade, J.—Both these appeals are filed against Judgment and award of Land Acquisition Case No. 67 of 2006 which was pending before the Learned Ad hoc District Judge-I, Fast Track Court-I, South Goa, Margao.

The original applicants have filed First Appeal No. 63 of 2008 and the State has filed the other appeal. Both sides are heard.

This Court has gone through the record and the reasoning given by the reference court for fixing the rate of the acquired land. As against the rate given of Rs. 70/- per sq. metre by Land Acquisition Officer in respect of survey No. 86/4, the rate is given as Rs. 100/- per sq. metre by the reference Court. In respect of land acquired from survey No. 86/7, when the Land Acquisition Officer gave Rs. 15/- per sq. metre, reference court enhanced it to Rs. 30/- per sq. metre. In respect of the third land, that is survey No. 86/9 when the Land Acquisition Officer gave Rs. 25/-, the reference court gave Rs. 20/- per sq. metre.

The Notification was of 11/01/2001. The applicants placed reliance on three sale deeds which are of the years 1999, 2000 and 2004. The reference court has held that the sale instance of 2004 cannot be considered. The reference court has considered two sale deeds of the year 1999 and 2000. However, the reference court has not discussed the material on record and has not given reasons for fixing the aforesaid rate, when in sale instance the rate was Rs. 600/- per sq. metre. The learned counsel for the appellants from the first proceeding produced the revenue map to show the location of land in the sale instance and the land acquired. There is possibility that this map was not produced before the reference court. In any case, the reference court has not given reasons for fixing the aforesaid rate. If the rate is given in the sale instance reasons are required to be given for not accepting it. It needs to be specifically decided as to whether sale instance is comparable to the land acquired. If sale instance is comparable, then the price needs to be fixed on the basis of the factors which need to be considered which can be minus factors also. This is not done. It can be said that the reference court has approximately fixed the rate and the methods given by the Apex Court for fixing the rate are not at all used when the sale instances are made available.

The Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the case of Subh Ram and Others Vs. Haryana State and Another, . The Learned Government Advocate has argued on the same point. In view of the submissions made in the two proceedings, this Court holds that both the appeals need to be allowed and the matter needs to be remanded back to the reference court for taking decision afresh. The parties can be allowed to lead more evidence like production of revenue map etc.

In the result both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and award of the reference court in the aforesaid case is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the reference court for fresh hearing. The reference court to decide the matter within six months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.