AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 55/2003 dated 15.06.2005 whereby a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act'') was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired belonging to the respondents was fixed at the rate of Rs.110/-per square metre besides statutory benefits. Pursuant to a notification u/s 4 of the said Act, a portion of the property belonging to the respondents admeasuring an area of 715 square metres from the property surveyed under no.17/6 of Aquem, was intended to be acquired by notification dated 17.04.1997. By an award dated 19.10.2001, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.20/-per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents preferred the reference u/s 18 of the said Act for enhancement of the compensation and claimed Rs.250/-per square for the land acquired. By the impugned judgment and award dated 15.06.2005, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.110/-per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the land acquired was coming within the road widening area and as such the question of fixing the compensation on the basis of a sale deed of a developed plot does not arise. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record and pointed out that the land acquired was coming within the road widening area and as such the question of fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.110/-per square metre is on the higher side. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondents have failed to discharge the burden to show that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and as such the sale instance relied upon by the respondents in support of their claim of enhancement of compensation was not comparable with the land acquired. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and evidence on record and pointed out that there is no material produced on record to establish the comparability with the land acquired and the sale instance produced by the respondents. The learned Counsel as such submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the land acquired was situated at Aquem in Margao city which is the commercial capital of the State of Goa wherein the land had high demand. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court has fixed the compensation by considering the sale instance dated 02.02.1996 in respect of the portion of the same property which came to be acquired pursuant to the said notification. The learned Counsel further pointed out that it is well settled that when a sale instance in respect of the same property is relied upon for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land, the question of going beyond the boundary of the property to ascertain the market value of such land does not arise. The learned Counsel as such submits that considering the comparable sale instance in respect of the same property, the question of contending that comparability of the land has not been established is totally farfetched. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and evidence on record and pointed out that there is sufficient material on record to conclusively establish that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and that the appellants have failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the respondents. The learned Counsel as such submits that in any event, the Reference Court whilst fixing the compensation has effected maximum deduction of 75% which itself is exorbitant and as such no case is made out by the appellants for interference by this Court in the impugned judgment.
Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusal of the records, the following point for my determination arises in the present appeal:
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.110/-per square metre ?
On perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the material on record, I find that the respondent in support of his claim of enhancement of compensation has examined the original respondent Pandurang Narain Sukhthankar as AW1. He has stated in his evidence that he knows the property surveyed under no.17/6 at Aquem Village of Salcete Taluka which is located opposite the Military Camp at Rawanfond, Salcete Goa. He has further stated that he has sub-divided the said property into plots and the Southern Planning and Development Authority, Margao, by a letter dated 10.05.1984 had issued the approval for such sub-divisions. He has further pointed out that while issuing the said permission a specific area was also asked to be reserved for road widening area. The said respondent has further pointed out that an area of 715 square metres from the said property came to be acquired which otherwise is located in the settlement zone. He has further stated that by a sale deed dated 02.02.1996, he sold a plot at the rate of Rs.399/-per square metre. He has further pointed out that despite of the said sale deed, at the time of Section 4 notification the prevailing market value of the land was Rs.250/-per square metres. He has produced the letter granting the permission for development which is at Exhibit 14. He has also produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 02.02.1996 which is marked as Exhibit 15. There is nothing which has been brought in the cross examination to disprove the statement made in the affidavit by the appellants herein. The cross examination is only bare denial. As such, the fact that the land acquired was in settlement zone and it was already sub-divided much before Section 4 notification has been duly established from the evidence of AW1. Apart from that, sale deed at Exhibit 15 which is a plot of the same property has also not been disputed by the appellants in the cross examination. The next witness examined is Krishna P. Prabhu Desai, who is an expert valuer, has also supported the case of the respondents and produced a valuation report and opined that the value of the land acquired according to him was Rs.800/-per square metre at the relevant time. The said witness has also been cross examined by the respondents. The learned Judge upon appreciating the evidence on record and considering the material adduced by the respondents has fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.110/-per square metre. The contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate to the effect that the plot which comes within the road widening area has no value cannot be accepted. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in State of Goa and Another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others, , has clearly held that the compensation for the land which comes within the road widening area can also be fixed on the basis of the value of the developed plot after giving appropriate deduction for fixing the market value of the land. It is well settled that the land which comes within the road widening area can always be utilized by the owner for extra FAR and keeping open space during the course of the development of the property. Considering the said aspect, the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants to the effect that the land reserved for road widening area has no value cannot be accepted. The Reference Court whilst fixing the market value for the land acquired has found a sale deed at Exhibit 15 which is in respect of a developed plot of the same property can form the basis for fixing the market value for the land acquired. I find no reason to interfere with the said findings of the Reference Court. It is well settled that when a sale instance is available in respect of the same property, it is the best evidence which can form the basis for fixing the market value for the land acquired. Considering the said aspect, the Reference Court was justified to consider the sale deed at Exhibit 15 for fixing the market value for the land acquired. The sale deed plot is sold approximately at Rs.400/-per square metre. The Reference Court after giving a deduction of 75% and considering the time gap between Section 4 notification and the sale deed has fixed the market value for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.110/-per square metre. The deduction which has been effected is to the extent of nearly 75%. Considering the said deduction, I find that the Reference Court has fixed a just and proper compensation for the land acquired and it cannot be said that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court is exorbitant or that such value has been fixed without appreciating the material adduced on record. Hence, I find that no case is made out for interference by this Court in the impugned judgment for fixing the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.110/-per square metre. The point for determination is answered accordingly. In view of the above, I find no merit the above appeal which stands accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.