AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2006, passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, in Land Acquisition case No. 5/2000, whereby the reference preferred by the Appellants has been partly allowed.
By Notification, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the said Act), dated 3rd June, 1997, published in the Official Gazette dated 10th July, 1997, the land belonging to the Appellants surveyed under No. 161/2 admeasuring an area of 21,950 square metres, was acquired by the Respondents. By an Award dated 17th November, 1998, passed u/s 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 32/- per square metre.
Being dissatisfied by the said Award, a reference was sought by the Appellants u/s 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and prayed for a compensation of Rs. 200/- per square metre. By Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2006, the Reference Court has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 48/- per square metre for the land acquired.
Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants preferred the present Appeal.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants has assailed the impugned Judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has misdirected itself in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs. 48/- per square metre when, according to him, the compensation ought to have been more than Rs. 100/- per square metre. He has further submitted that the Appellants have produced cogent evidence on record to substantiate their claim that the compensation ought to have been more than Rs. 100/- per square metre. He further submitted that in view of rival claims put forward for the compensation awarded in respect of the land surveyed under No. 161/2, a reference u/s 30 of the said Act is pending before the learned District Judge. He further submitted that the subject matter of the land acquired in the present case is part of the same land as that acquired in First Appeal No. 84/2007.
On the other hand, the learned Addl. Government Advocate, has supported the impugned Judgment and submitted that there is no evidence on record for higher compensation then the one awarded by the Reference Court. He further submitted that the Reference Court rightly assessed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the market value of land as on the date of Section 4 Notification is Rs. 48/- per square metre. He further submitted that there is no infirmity committed in the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court and, as such, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard the Learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal:
Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of land acquired at the rate of Rs. 48/- per square metre.
There is no dispute that the property surveyed under No. 161/2 is also a part of the land which was the subject matter of the land acquired in First Appeal No. 84/2007. While disposing off the said First Appeal, this Court has come to the conclusion that the market value of the said land surveyed under No. 161/2 as on the date of Section 4 Notification, is Rs. 68/per square metre. There is no justification for any different amount being determined in the present Appeal.
The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in Allwyn Housing Colony Welfare Association Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, , has held at para 17 thus:
There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. The High Court based its decision on its earlier common judgment arising out of the same notification. The lead judgment was delivered in Jia Ram v. Union of India. We have not been informed whether any appeal has been preferred against that judgment and if so, what was the result thereof. In the absence of that information, we are of the opinion that the appellants should not be treated differently from Jia Ram who might not have preferred any appeal and have accepted the judgment of the High Court.
For the reasons stated in the Judgment disposing of the First Appeal No. 84/2007, we find that the market value of the land acquired as on the date of Section 4 Notification is Rs. 68/- per square metre.
In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2006, is partly modified and the market value of land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 68/- per square metre for the land acquired. The remaining part of the Award granting statutory benefits, is confirmed.
(iii) The compensation with regard to the land surveyed under No. 161/2 shall be disbursed only in accordance with the determination of the reference u/s 30 of the said Act which is stated to be pending before the learned District Judge.
(iv) The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs.