AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J
The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 21.07.2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 29 of 2000. By a preliminary Notification dated 26.06.1992, published in the Official Gazette dated 06.08.1992, the Appellants acquired land belonging to the Respondent for the purpose of constructing and black topping of St. Sebastian Chapel Road via Wadi, Pequeno Pulvado and Pulwado in Village Panchayat of Benaulim, Salcete, admeasuring an area of 775 square metres. The Land Acquisition Officer whilst passing an Award u/s 11 of the said Act, offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 8/- per square metre for the land acquired.
Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondents sought a reference u/s 18 of the said Act and disputed the area of the land acquired as well as claimed compensation of Rs. 18,000/- towards the cost of reconstruction of the laterite stone fencing besides valuation of trees and compensation for land acquired at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square metre.
The learned Reference Court after framing the issues and hearing the parties, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 21.07.2005, partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 75/-per square metre. The claim for compensation on account of the costs of the laterite stones and the value of the trees came to be rejected.
Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal.
Shri Vahidulla, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the Appellants, has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the claim of the Respondent for any claim for enhancement. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired was a narrow strip of land and pointed out that the Reference Court failed to note that the Respondent failed to adduce any material to substantiate the claim for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further took me through the sale instances produced by the Respondents and pointed out that the said Sale Deed plot is not at all comparable to the land acquired and, as such, the said sale instance cannot form basis for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, Shri S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned Judgment. The learned Counsel has submitted that the Reference Court has deducted 75 percent from the value shown in the Sale Deed on account of developing charges which is quite exorbitant considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the area involved in the acquisition. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Respondent has not filed Cross Objection and, in fact, the Respondent is entitled for much higher compensation considering the location of the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is ample evidence on record to substantiate the claim of the Respondent that the sale instance produced by the Respondent is comparable to the land acquired. The learned Counsel as such pointed out that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and that this Court in the Judgment dated 01.10.2010, in respect of the notification for acquisition of the road published in February, 1991, accepted the compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square metre for the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that 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 compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square metre ?
In support of his claim for enhancement, the Respondent has filed his affidavit and stated that the acquired land is part of the property surveyed under No. 255/1 of Benaulim Village. He has further stated that the total area of the property is 3150 square metres out of which an area of 792 square metres has been acquired though the Land Acquisition Officer has stated that the area is 775 square metres. In support of his claim for enhancement, he has produced a report dated 24.10.1995 of Shri C. X. Menezes, besides Sale Deed dated 04.05.1992. In his cross examination he has stated that the acquired land is adjacent to the public road. He has further stated that he had to pass through two properties to have access to the acquired land from the road and that there was a footpath access to the acquired land.
The next witness examination is Shri Krishna Prabhu Dessai, who has stated in his affidavit that he had visited the site for the purpose of valuing the land and the land acquired is part of the property surveyed under No. 255/1. He has further stated that the surface of the land acquired is flat land. He has further stated that he has inspected the land in the Sale Deed dated 14.05.1992 and the land acquired and that he has verified the Survey Records in respect of both the properties. He has further stated that the land acquired is accessible by traditional access and that the land subject matter of the Sale Deed is accessible by the PWD road which is newly constructed. He has further stated that the acquired land is in a settlement area as per the ODP Plan. He has given the distances from the Dabolim Airport, Railway Station in his affidavit from the acquired land and according to him, the Sale Deed plot is subject to a overhead electrical line and that the value and the rate of land assessed therein is at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square metre. He has further stated that the Sale Deed plot is located towards the internal road and according to him the value of the land acquired is about Rs. 300/- per square metre. The said witness has been duly cross examined. On perusal of the cross examination, there is no substantial challenge to the nature of the land acquired and the Sale Deed plots nor the distance furnished by the said expert in his valuation report to the amenities available to the land acquired.
The next witness examined is Shri Ravindranath Monomohandas Naik, who has produced some photographs to depict the nature of the trees of the acquired land.
The next witness is Shri C. X. Menezes. He has produced valuation report. However, as there is no challenge to the refusal of compensation for the agricultural value of the trees, the said valuation need not be considered. The Reference Court whilst passing the impugned Judgment has found that the Sale Deed at exhibit 15 dated 14.05.1992 is comparable to the land acquired and after making deductions to the extent of 75 percent, has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square metre.
On perusal of the evidence of Aw.1 and the valuer, I find that there is Sale Deed at exhibit 15 is comparable to the land acquired. The Sale Deed no doubt is of a developed plot and the land acquired was undeveloped land. The Reference Court has deducted 75 percent on account of dissimilarities as effected in the impugned Judgment. Considering the difference with the area of the land acquired and the Sale Deed plot, the Reference Court has deducted 50 percent and the fact that the land acquired had no direct access and other dissimilarities, further deduction of 25 percent has been effected. The Respondent has not filed any Cross Objection or any Cross Appeal challenging the said deduction. Considering the area of the land, the said deductions appear to be on the higher side but in any case as the Respondent has not filed the Cross Objection, the question of interference would not arise. Apart from that, whilst disposing the First Appeal No. 152/2004 by Judgment dated 01.10.2010, this Court has rejected an Appeal preferred by the Government challenging an Award of the Reference Court fixing compensation at the rate of Rs. 65/- per square metre for the land acquired in Benaulim for the construction of the road at Pulwado pursuant to a Notification dated 25.01.1991. The notification in the present case is of the year 1992. Considering that the acquisitions were in the same Village, I find that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square metre cannot be considered to be excessive or exorbitant. The amount awarded by the Reference Court is reasonable and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. Shri Vahidulla, the learned Counsel for the Appellants is not justified to contend that the Respondent has failed to discharge the burden to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. There is sufficient material adduced by the Respondent in the nature of the said instances to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and the Appellants have chosen not to lead any evidence to dispute or establish that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and fair. As such, I find no case is made out for interference in the impugned Judgment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. In view of the above, the Appeal stands dismissed.