AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.C. Chavan, J.—This appeal by State is directed against award by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji upon reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act bearing Land Acquisition No. 36/1998, whereby the learned Additional District Judge enhanced compensation granted from Rs. 71/- per sq. mtr. to Rs. 154/- per sq.mtr. relying on an award in Land Acquisition Case No. 48/1995.
A part of agricultural land admeasuring 2715 sq.mtrs. bearing survey No. 85 of village Curti abutting National Highway was acquired by the State for widening the highway. This land too was included in the Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 14.2.1991 under which the land which was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 48/95 was acquired. The learned Judge of the reference Court therefore, relied on the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 48/1995 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 154/- per sq.mtr. Aggrieved thereby, the State is in appeal.
We have heard Advocate Shirodkar for the appellants and Advocate Ramani for the respondents. The only point that arises for our consideration, is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the reference Court is proper.
The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in question is a narrow strip of agricultural land which had no non agricultural potential since it was abutting the highway and no construction could have been carried out within 40 mtrs. from the centre of the highway. Therefore, it could not have been compared to land which was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 48/1995. For this purpose, he relied on judgment in Panna Lal Gosh and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SCW 66.
This learned adversary submitted that the very fact the strip of land abutted highway should be enough to demonstrate its potential. It is not shown that the entire strip acquired was within 40 metres belt from the centre of the highway. Therefore, comparison by the learned Judge cannot be termed far fetched.
The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that yet the reference Court should not have relied on the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 48/1995 since it could not be termed as previous judgment. For this purpose he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Karan Singh and others etc. Vs. Union of India, . A bare reading of paragraph 8 of the judgment would show that what was sought to be relied on in that case was an award under a subsequent notification u/s 4. Such is not the present case. Judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 48/1995 therefore, could be relied on as a previous judgment.
Evidence of not only claimant but also official of the appellants would show that the land under acquisition could be compared to that dealt with by the learned District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 48/1995. By a separate judgment deciding appeal and cross objection challenging the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 48/1995, we are in fact granting enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq.mtr. to the claimant therein. Considering this, compensation at the rate of Rs. 154/- per sq.mtr. to the claimant herein would adequately take care of negative factors, if any attached to land which is subject of this appeal.
In view of this, we see no force in the appeal and dismiss the same.