AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.A. Britto, J.—Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties.
Both the parties are dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 3/04/2004 and, therefore, have filed the present appeals.
The Government had acquired 117 square metres of the applicant''s land of Survey No. 3/4 of Village Sernabatim in Salcete Taluka for the construction of a road from St. Jose Moll via Tolloi, Vanelim Chinchemorod in Village Panchayat of Colva and had awarded compensation to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 32/- per square metre. The applicant had sought enhancement at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per square metre and in support of his case for enhancement the applicant had relied upon three sale deeds which were exhibited as C21, C22 and C23. By sale deed C21 dated 30/03/1992 two plots were sold for Rs. 448/-and Rs. 430/- per square metre. By sale deed C22 dated 7/06/1994 the plot was sold at the rate of Rs. 78.26 per square metre and by sale deed C23 dated 14/07/1995 the plot sold was at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square metre. All the three sale deeds pertain to property sold in the adjoining village Vanelim but at short distances from the acquired property. The learned Reference Court did come to the conclusion that the applicant''s acquired property had building potential as there were amenities such as electricity, water supply, telephone, market, etc. and Sernabatim beach was situated at a very close distance, facts which were not even denied by the Respondents. The learned Reference Court proceeded to assess the compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre but in doing so the learned Reference Court has not indicated on what basis the said compensation has been fixed. Shri Shirodkar, has rightly submitted that the compensation payable has been determined on mere guess work and without any basis. The impugned award does not show whether the learned Reference Court has taken an average of the said three sale deeds to fix the market value at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre nor does it show whether any of the three sale deeds produced by the applicant were chosen as a guide to fix the compensation. The applicant''s property was not very far from Sernabatim beach and otherwise did not have any impediments regarding its development. The learned Reference Court noted that the acquired portion was a strip of land but did not take into account that it was required to be valued as a part of the whole of the property of the applicant. Here it may be observed that in State of West Bengal Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee and Others, , a decision which has been followed by this Court, it has been stated that a strip of land has to be valued as a part of the claimants plot whose part it formed, taking into account its value to the owner with all its existing advantages and all its possibilities and potentialities.
The Apex Court in State of Goa and Another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others, has held that a long strip of land admeasuring more than two-third of an acre lying alongside and adjoining the Highway cannot be treated as a land without value or without any potential for development, merely on the ground that the law relating to Highways prohibited construction on either side of the Highway, upto a depth of 40 metres from the centre of the Highway.
The learned Reference Court, as it can be seen from impugned judgment, at one stage deducted the value of the trees which in terms of the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 42/2005 in the case of Smt. Shrimati Vishwanath Acharya (expired, represented by her legal representative) Madhav Vishwanath Acharya v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., could not have been deducted. Suffice it to observe, that the learned Reference Court has not followed any known principle of valuation and has assessed the compensation payable by mere guess work and without taking into consideration any of the said three sale deeds produced on behalf of the applicant.
Consequently, I have no other option but to set aside the impugned judgment/award of the learned Reference Court and remand the case to the learned Reference Court to assess the compensation payable to the applicant based on the observations made hereinabove.
Consequently, both the appeals succeed. The impugned award is hereby set aside. The learned Reference Court is hereby directed to dispose of the reference as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from 6/12/2010. Parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 6/12/2010 at 10.00 a.m.