State of Goa and The Director of Health Services vs Shri Jaisingrao A. Rane and Others

A.P. Lavande, J.—By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the Judgment and Award dated 6.1.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No. 20/2000, partly allowing the reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for short).

Vide notification issued u/s 4 of the Act dated 9.10.1986 which was published in the official gazette dated 20.10.1986, the Government of Goa acquired the land admeasuring 2890 square metres belonging to the respondents bearing survey No. 12/15 of Revora village for construction of Rural Medical dispensary including staff quarters. The respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square metre. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award dated 17.3.1989 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 5/- per square metre.

The respondents sought reference u/s 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at Rs. 60/- per square metre.

In the Land Acquisition case No. 20/2000 the claimants examined three witnesses namely Pratapsingh Rane, AW1, Shilpa Gaonkar, AW2, Jaisingrao Rane, AW3. On behalf of the appellants one witness Rohidas Malwankar was examined. The claimants placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 1.10.1983 (exhibit 13) by which an area of 724 square metres was sold for a consideration of Rs. 5000/-. Another sale deed dated 18.4.1986 (exhibit 14) by which an area of 2206 square metres was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 19,000/- was also relied upon. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 1.10.1983 and considering the yearly increase in the price came to the conclusion that the rate of the acquired land in October, 1989 would be Rs. 10/- per square metre. However, the Reference Court fixed the rate at Rs. 15/- per square metre on the ground that the acquired land has many facilities and also potentiality.

The appellants have challenged the award by filing the appeal.

Mr. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants submitted that even if the sale deed dated 1.10.1983 was considered the Reference Court could not have fixed the market rate at Rs. 15/- per square metre. He further submitted that even the price mentioned in the sale deed dated 18.4.1986 which was executed few months prior to Section 4 notification at Rs. 8.60 per square metre is considered the market rate fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 15/- is highly excessive.

Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Reference Court has rightly placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 1.10.1983 and considering the potentialities of the acquired land and the facilities around the acquired land has rightly fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 15/- per square metre.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

In view of the rival submissions and the findings given by the Reference Court, the following point arises for determination in the present appeal.

Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 15/- per square metre? If not, what was the market rate of the acquired land on the date of publication of Section 4 notification?

The evidence of Pratapsingh Rane, AW1, Shilpa Gaonkar, AW2 examined on behalf of the respondents/claimants and that of Rohidas Malwankar examined on behalf of the appellants discloses that the acquired land were situated in village Revora and the same was abutting a road. The acquired land was slightly rocky and sloppy. The National highway was at a distance of 1.5kms and post office and talathi''s office was situated just across the acquired land. The Government Primary school was at a distance of 100 metres and local market was at a distance of 1/2 km.

In so far as two sale deeds are concerned, although the sale deed dated 18.4.1986 is proximate in time, there is absolutely no evidence as to location of the said plot vis-a-vis the acquired land. This being the position, the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance upon the sale deed dated 1.10.1983 by which an area admeasuring 724 square metres situated at a distance of about 1 kms from the acquired land was sold at Rs. 6.90 per square metre. Taking this plot as a comparable sale instance the value of the said plot in October, 1989 taking 10% increase on compounding basis would be 9.30 per square metre. The acquired land was 2890 square metres whereas the sale deed plot was 724 square metres. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Pangam that no deduction could be made on the ground of largeness of the plot of area. A plot of 724 square metres cannot be compared with another plot of 2890 square metres. Therefore, the appropriate deduction has to be made while fixing the market rate of the acquired land. In my opinion the appropriate deduction would be 10%. Mr. Pangam has rightly contended that advantages which the acquired plot had such as existence of abutting road, Government Primary School, market, post office and talathi''s office would surely have to be taken into consideration while fixing the market rate of the acquired land. These advantages were obviously not available to the sale deed plot dated 1.10.1983 which was admittedly situated at a distance of about 1 km. In my opinion, in view of the said facilities appropriate addition has to be made. In my opinion appropriate addition would be 35%.

Considering the net increase of 25% vis-a-vis the price of the plot in sale deed, exhibit 13 the price of the acquired land as on date of publication of Section 4 notification comes to 11.60 per square metre which is rounded off to Rs. 12/- per square metre. Thus, the market rate of the acquired land as on date of publication of Section 4 notification works out to Rs. 12/- per square metre. Respondents are, therefore, entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square metre. Needless to mention that the respondents are also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal stands partly allowed with no order as to costs.