AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.A. Britto, J.—Heard.
This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27/12/2004 of the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2002. The applicant had two plots of land, one surveyed under No. 70/4 admeasuring about 1,000 square metres and the other surveyed under No. 71/36 admeasuring about 3,400 square metres. Out of the first plot 425 square metres, and out of the second plot 1,900 square metres were acquired by the Government by notification published on Gazette dated 4/07/1991 for the purpose of construction of a road from Seraulim to Colva in Salcete Taluka.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the applicants at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square metre. The applicants sought enhancement at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square metre. The applicants also sought enhancement of the value of the trees and also for severance charges. In support of the reference, the applicants relied upon two sale deeds namely sale deed dated 26/09/1990 by which plot of land admeasuring 1525 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs. 160/- per square metre. The second was sale deed dated 21/06/1988 by which the plot was sold at the rate of Rs. 183/- per square metre. Both the plots were situated in the same village Seraulim where the applicants'' acquired land was also situated.
The applicants also relied upon the valuation report prepared by engineer Shri S.N. Bhende. The learned Reference Court noted that the sale deed dated 26/09/1990 was of a narrow strip of land which was acquired from the applicants. The learned Reference Court also noted that the second sale deed pertains to fully developed plot of a sub-division where bungalows have been put up. The learned Reference Court therefore came to the conclusion that the said sale deeds could not be compared with the narrow strip of land which was acquired from the applicants.
Shri Kholkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants has placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in State of West Bengal Vs. Bibhuti Bhusan Chatterjee and Others, as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa and Another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others, and has contended that the applicants'' acquired property had to be valued as part of the entire property of the applicants.
The Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, has, inter alia, observed that the Reference Court is required to identify the most comparable instances out of the genuine instances from the proximity of time angle and proximity of situation angle and after identifying the same the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. A balance sheet of plus and minus factors has got to be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors, etc.
The learned Reference Court does not appear to have done the said exercise. Therefore, there is no other option before the Court, but to set aside the impugned award and remand the case to the learned Reference Court to decide the reference afresh after hearing the parties and after taking note of the decisions cited hereinabove.
Consequently, the first appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. Parties to appear before the learned Reference Court on 30th instant at 10.00 a.m. Let this exercise be completed within eight weeks thereafter.