AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—All the above appeals were taken up together for final disposal as the lands involved in all the said appeals were acquired pursuant to the same notification.
Facts in First Appeal No. 283/2005
By a notification issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as ''the said Act'', published in the Official Gazette dated 28/08/1998 and notified on 2/09/1998, the appellants intended to acquire the land belonging to the respondent for the construction and black topping of road from U. M. Mohammed house to Khandi via Mobor in village Panchayat of Cavelossim, admeasuring an area of 3300 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 126/11.
By an award u/s 11 of the said Act dated 27/08/2001, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 62/- per square metre for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference u/s 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 800/- per square metre for the land acquired.
By judgment and award dated 13/07/2005, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and enhanced the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre, besides other statutory benefits. The said payments were made subject to the result of the reference u/s 30 of the said Act in respect of the acquired land. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Facts in First Appeal No. 284 of 2005 By the same notification issued u/s 4 of the said Act dated 2/09/1998, the land belonging to the respondent admeasuring an area of 2250 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 123/1, and an area of 50 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 126/2 besides an area of 2050 square metres from the property surveyed under no.129/1 was sought to be acquired for the same purpose. Total area acquired was admeasuring 4350 square metres, besides an area of 50 square metres from survey No. 126/2 which was stated to be a pond.
By an award passed u/s 11 of the said Act, dated 27/08/2001, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 62/- per square metre for the land bearing survey no.123/1 and 129/1 and Rs. 2/- per square metre for the area occupied by the pond. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference u/s 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed an amount of Rs. 800/- per square metre for the land acquired.
By judgment and award dated 13/07/2005, passed in Land the said reference and enhanced the compensation for the land acquired in respect of the property bearing survey No. 123/1 and 129/1 admeasuring an area of 4300 square metres at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre, besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Facts in First Appeal No. 285 of 2005
By the same notification issued u/s 4 of the said Act, the land belonging to the respondent admeasuring an area of 1150 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 131/3 was intended to be acquired for the same purpose situated at Cavelossim. By the same award dated 27/08/2001, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 62/- per square metre for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference u/s 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 800/- per square metre for the said land acquired. By judgment and award dated 13/07/2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 53/2002, the Reference Court has partly allowed the said reference and enhanced the compensation to the sum of Rs. 100/- per square metre, besides statutory benefits. The compensation was subject to the result in the reference u/s 30 of the said Act in respect of the land acquired, which was pending. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants herein preferred the present appeal.
Submissions and consideration thereof in all the aforesaid appeals:
Ms. Susan Linhares, the learned Additional Government advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment passed in all the aforesaid appeals and submitted that there are no comparable sale instances produced on record, which would justify any enhancement of compensation payable to the respondent. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has rightly rejected two sale instances produced by the respondent and erroneously relied upon the sale deed at Exhibit 32 dated 19/06/1992, which was not at all comparable with the land acquired. The learned Counsel took me through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record and pointed out that the acquired land was a narrow strip of land and, as such, the same could not be compared to the acquired land which was the subject matter of the said sale deed at Exhibit 32 which was admeasuring an area of 18,225 square metres. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired had no motorable access and, as such, the deduction effected by the Reference Court ought to have been much higher. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the dissimilarities of the land acquired as the same was Communidade land, was a fact which was not considered by the Reference Court while fixing the market value of the acquired land.
The respondent though served failed to remain present nor being represented by any Counsel in all the above appeals.
Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that the Reference Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the sale instances produced by the respondent which are at Exhibit 27 and 28 were not comparable with the land acquired. The Reference Court has given cogent reason to discard the said sale instances for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. No interference is called for in the said findings of the Reference Court.
With regard to the sale instance at Exhibit 32, the price at square metre. The Reference Court has considered that there is a gap between the sale deed and the Section 4 notification in the present case of six years. The Reference Court has granted an escalation at the rate of 10% per annum for the purpose of fixing the rate as on the relevant date. The Reference Court, as such, came to the conclusion that the amount works out to Rs. 120.80 per square metre as on the date of Section 4 notification which was issued in the year 1998. As far as dissimilarities of the land are concerned, the Reference Court has considered that the land acquired in the present case was a Communidade land and that the land acquired was much further than the Arabian sea as against the land which was subject matter of the said sale instance at Exhibit 32. Considering the said factors, the Reference Court has effected necessary deductions and fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre.
Considering the evidence on record and on the basis of sale instance at Exhibit 32, which is comparable to the land acquired, I find that the amount determined by the Reference Court by fixing the market value of the acquired land as on the date of Section 4 notification at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre cannot be considered to be unjust or excessive. The Reference Court has rightly applied the well settled principles of law in determining the market value of the acquired land as contemplated under the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act and came to the conclusion that the respondents were entitled for compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre. The learned Additional Government Advocate is not justified to contend that the Reference Court has not considered the dissimilarities of the acquired land while fixing the market value of the land acquired. The appellants failed to adduce any evidence to justify the price fixed in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, when the respondent had adduced evidence to substantiate that the price offered was inadequate.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, I find there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court. There is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court while fixing the market value of the acquired land and, as such, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award. In view of the above, all the above appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs.