AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—First Appeal No. 92/2001 has been filed challenging Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2001 passed by Addl. District Judge, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 210/1995 partly allowing the reference. The Cross Objection No. 16/2001, has been filed by respondent claiming higher compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/-per square metre.
Vide Notification issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Official Gazette dated 27.06.1991, the State of Goa acquired lands in Nagorcem, Palolem of Canacona Taluka for Konkan Railway Corporation Limited. This included an area of 810 square metres from survey No. 54/6 and an area of 1400 square metres of land from survey No. 54/15 belonging to the respondents in appeal (hereinafter referred to as the ''claimants''). The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award dated 09.12.1993, awarding Rs. 17/-per square metre in respect of the acquired land which was coconut grove. Separate compensation was granted in respect of fruit value and wood value. Being dissatisfied, the claimant sought reference u/s 18 of the Act and claimed Rs. 150/- per square metre.
In Land Acquisition Case No. 210/95, the claimants examined three witnesses namely Narendra Raikar-Aw.1, Gopal Bale-Aw.2 and Vinayak Todur Aw.3. The claimants relied upon three Sale Deeds i.e. Sale Deed dated 05.06.1989, exhibit Aw.1/B, Sale Deed dated 26.12.1988, exhibit Aw.1/C and Sale Deed dated 16.06.1991, exhibit Aw.1/D. Exhibit Aw.1/B was in respect of agricultural/garden land admeasuring 101 square metres, which was sold at the rate of Rs. 100/-per square metres. Exhibit A.w.1/C was in respect of 31 square metres which was sold at the rate of Rs. 113/-per square metres and exhibit Aw.1/D was in respect of an area of 303 square metres, which was sold at the rate of Rs. 148.50 per square metres. The appellants did not lead any evidence before the reference Court. The reference Court placed reliance upon Sale Deed dated 16.06.1991 (Aw.1/D) on the ground that it was proximate in time and location. The reference Court held that the acquired land was comparable to the land in Sale Deed exhibit Aw.1/D. The reference Court further held that the acquired land was sloppy and hilly land whereas the Sale Deed plot was levelled land. The reference Court further held that the Sale Deed plot was close to National Highway and about 100 metres away from Primary Health Centre and the acquired land was more than one kilometre from Chawdi. Considering the disadvantages of the acquired land vis a vis the Sale Deed land, the reference Court deducted 50% from the consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed. The reference Court also held that since the value of the acquired land was being fixed on the basis of the Sale Deed land, the claimants were not separately entitled to fruit value of Rs. 51,000/-awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, adjusted the said amount for the purpose of fixing the market value of acquired land and held that actually the claimants were awarded Rs. 40/-per square metre. The reference Court held that the market rate of the acquired land was Rs. 74/-per square metre and, consequently, the claimants were entitled to difference of Rs. 34/-per square metre in respect of the acquired land.
Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the reference Court has erred in placing reliance upon Sale Deed dated 16.06.1991 as comparable Sale Deed. He further submitted that the reference Court has not considered largeness of the acquired land and consequently has not made any deduction in that regard. He further submitted that the claimants are not entitled to enhanced compensation and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Mr. Borkar, appearing for the claimants, submitted that although reference Court was justified in placing reliance upon Sale Deed dated 16.06.1991, no deduction ought to have been made by the reference Court on the grounds mentioned in the impugned Judgment and Order. He further submitted that the acquired land was comparable in all respects to the Sale Deed land and, therefore, the reference Court ought to have granted the rate mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 16.06.1991. In so far as largeness of the acquired land is concerned, Mr. Borkar submitted that although two plots bearing survey No. 54/6 and 54/15 were belonging to the claimants, they were not contiguous and, as such, cannot be termed as large as compared to the Sale Deed plot and, therefore, the reference Court has rightly not made any deduction on that count. He further submitted that there is no much difference in the location of the acquired land and the Sale Deed plot and having regard to their respective location, no deduction could have been made by the reference Court on the ground that the Sale Deed plot was better located. He, therefore, submitted that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square metre.
I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. As stated above, the reference Court has placed reliance upon the Sale Deed dated 16.06.1991 for fixing the market rate of the acquired land on the ground that it is comparable sale instance. Having regard to the date on which Sale Deed was executed and publication of Section 4 Notification and having regard to the eivdence on record regarding the nature of the acquired land and the Sale Deed plot, I am of the considered opinion that the reference Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the Sale Deed dated 16.06.1991. The nature of the acquired land was similar to the Sale Deed land and both had coconut plantation. Therefore, the approach of the reference Court in placing reliance upon the Sale Deed dated 16.06.1991, cannot be faulted.
The next question which arises for consideration is whether the reference Court was justified in making deduction of 50% on the ground that the acquired land was sloppy and hilly and also on the ground that the Sale Deed plot was situated at distance of about 60 to 70 metres from National Highway whereas the acquired land was more than one kilometre from the National Highway. I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Borkar that the acquired land and the Sale Deed land were similar in point of location. There is cogent evidence on record that the Sale Deed plot was about 70 metres away from the National Highway whereas the evidence clearly suggests that the acquired land was more than one kilometre away from the National Highway. Moreover, Aw.1/ Narendra Dessai, who has admitted in cross examination that property bearing survey No. 54/15 was a strip of land with coconut trees, mango trees and other trees. This being the position, I do not find any infirmity in the finding given by the reference Court that since the acquired land was hilly and sloppy and was away from the National Highway, appropriate deduction had to be made in arriving at the market rate of the acquired land. In so far as the arguments of Mr. Afonso that the acquired land was large as compared to the Sale Deed is concerned, I do not find much merit therein inasmuch as the evidence clearly suggests that two plots bearing survey No. 54/6 and 54/15 were not adjoining and they were separated by other properties existing between them. However, I do not find any informity in the approach of the reference Court in deducting 50% from the rate mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 16.06.1991 considering the disadvantages of the acquired land vis-a-vis the Sale Deed land. In a catena of decisions, it has been held that in fixing the market rate of the acquired land even based on comparable sale instances or awards, a little guesswork is permissible and there cannot be straitjacket formula in fixing the deduction and the percentage of deduction depends upon several factors. In my considered opinion, the reference Court has followed the correct principles and has arrived at the rate of Rs. 74/-per square metre. The reference Court was justified in adjusting the compensation of Rs. 51,000/- awarded towards fruit bearing trees in as much as since the market rate of the acquired land was fixed on the basis of comparable sale instance, the compensation awarded towards fruit bearing trees had necessarily to be adjusted while fixing the market rate of the acquired land. I, therefore, hold that the reference Court was justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 74/-per square metre.
In the result, therefore, the appeal and the cross objection are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.