Land Acquisition Officer, PWD, (Cell) and The Superintendent of Police vs Shri Haridas Maruti Kamat and Others

N.A. Britto, J.—Heard.

This is State''s appeal and is filed u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and is directed against the judgment dated 8/03/2004 of the learned Reference Court by which compensation payable to the respondents (applicants, for short) has been enhanced from Rs. 123/- per square metre to Rs. 585/- per square metre.

The applicants had their land surveyed under No. 225/14 situated at Aquem Alto, Margao abutting Aquem Margao road. A strip having a width of about 5 metres of this land and an area of 580 square metres lying on extreme Western side of the property of the said applicants was acquired by the Government by virtue of notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on Gazette dated 14/08/1997 for the purpose of construction of approach road to the office cum residential complex of the Superintendent of police, South Goa, Margao. The Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 14/08/2000 awarded compensation to the applicants at the rate of Rs. 123/- per square metre. In the reference, the applicants claimed enhancement at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per square metre and in support of the reference the applicants examined AW1/Haridas Maruti Kamat, as well as, their expert AW2/Shri Vikas Dessai. The applicants produced the sale deed dated 27/08/1994, of a developed plot of land admeasuring 326 square metres sold at the rate of Rs. 600/- per square metre. The learned Reference Court has used the said sale deed as a guide to fix the compensation payable. Considering that the sale deed was about three years prior to the date of acquisition, the learned Reference Court has granted appreciation at the rate of 10% and then working out the price at Rs. 780/- has taken a deduction of 25%, as the lands were dissimilar, and fixed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 585/- per square metre. There is no dispute that the acquired land was situated in a fast developing locality known as Aquem Alto, Margao within the limits of Margao Municipality and the same was at a distance of 2.8 kms or so from Margao main market, Margao Municipality building, Collectorate building, etc. The bus stand was at a distance of about 3 kms. There was a general store, tea stall, bank, etc within 40 metres from the acquired land. There were also Government Primary Schools and High School located at a distance of about 100 metres while the post office, Cine Vishant Theater were at a distance of about 900 metres from the acquired land. The plot of the sale deed was located at a distance of about 120 metres from the acquired land. It was a developed plot admeasuring about 326 square metres which, as already stated, was sold at the rate of Rs. 600/- per square metre. The learned Reference Court has taken note of the fact that the plot of sale deed was bounded on the West by 3 metres wide reserved access, which is a kachcha road and which access meets the main road at a distance of about 70 metres away from the land of the sale deed.

The learned Reference Court has taken note of the observations of the Land Acquisition Officer that the acquired land was in a settlement zone and was of bharad type. This was required to be noted because AW1/Haridas Kamat was unable to make a positive statement whether the acquired property was in the settlement zone. The learned Reference Court has taken into consideration that the acquired land was abutting the main road whereas the plot of sale deed abutted only a kachcha road but at a distance of about 70 metres it had a road. Considering that the land abutting the main road would have a greater potentiality, as compared to the land situated in the interior, the learned Reference Court has considered that the acquired land was more advantageously located as compared to the land of the sale deed and thereafter proceeded to give appreciation of 10% and then took a deduction of 25% and worked out the compensation payable at Rs. 585/-.

Shri Vahidulla, the learned Additional Government Advocate points out to the evidence of AW1/Haridas Kamat submits that the applicants'' acquired land was about a metre lower in level than the level of the road. Learned Counsel submits that the acquired land would require development in order to bring it to the level of the road and, therefore, the learned Reference Court ought to have taken a deduction of about 50% to 60% from the price of the developed plot of the sale deed.

Shri Rivonkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the land acquired was for a road and, therefore, the price of the sale deed should have been accepted without taking any further deduction. In this context, Shri Rivonkar has placed reliance on the case of Nelson Fernandes and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and Others, , wherein the Apex Court has stated that the purpose for which land was acquired would be irrelevant. However, it is seen from Subh Ram and Others Vs. Haryana State and Another, that the Apex Court has taken note of Clause fifthly of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and has observed that the observations in Nelson Fernandes and Ors. (supra) would be per incuriam as they overlook the said mandatory statutory provision.

Admittedly, the applicants'' land as well as the plot of the sale deed were from the same locality of Aquem Alto, one being about 120 metres away from the other. Admittedly, the plot of the sale deed was a developed plot and towards development the learned Reference Court has taken a deduction of 25% after considering that the applicants'' land was having a greater potential than the plot of the sale deed as the applicants'' land was abutting the said Margao Aquem road. It may be that the applicants'' land was about a metre low lying than the level of the adjoining road. The survey plan shows that there were constructed houses in it, which means houses could be constructed without levelling the land. Even otherwise, the applicants'' land was better located as compared to the land of the sale deed.

Considering the facts of the case therefore, in my view, there is no case made out for interference. The learned Reference Court has applied correct principles and has arrived at the market value. There cannot be mathematical precision in assessing the market value of land and some guess work is always permissible. I find there is no merit in this appeal and, consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.