AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—By this appeal the appellants take exception to the Judgment and the Order dated 28.02.2000 passed by the Addl. District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Land Acquisition Case No. 51/1990 partly allowing the reference.
The State of Goa issued Notification u/s 4 of the Act, (the ''Act'' for short) acquiring large tracts of land for the public purpose namely construction of approached road to New Banastarim Bridge, Corlim Village in Tiswadi Taluka. An area of 2750 square metres bearing survey No. 60/8 belonging to the original claimant Edward Sequeira was part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/per square metre. The Land Acquisition Officer by its Award dated 10.03.1987 awarded Rs. 7/-per square metre and also awarded the compensation towards the trees and the compound wall and the structure existing in the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the Award the respondents sought reference u/s 18 of the Act, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square metre.
In Land Acquisition Case No. 51/1990 the respondent/claimant examined 4 witnesses and the appellants examined one witness. The reference Court upon appreciation of the evidence held that the respondent was entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs. 80/-per square metre. Although several documents were produced by the respondent in support of his claim for higher compensation, the reference Court placed reliance upon Award dated 15.10.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/1990 in which the reference Court had awarded Rs. 80 in respect of the property bearing survey No. 30(part) which was also acquired by the same Notification. The reference Court held that since the claimants in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/1990 were awarded Rs. 80/-per square metre, the respondents were also entitled to the same compensation since both the properties were acquired by the same Notification.
Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the property of the applicants in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/1990 and the land in the present case are not similar and therefore the reference Court ought not to have granted same compensation in favour of the respondents. He further submitted that the acquired land was about 500 metres away from the property of claimants in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/1990 and moreover the acquired land did not have motorable access leading to the main road. He therefore submitted that the reference Court ought to have made deductions on these counts while fixing the rate of the acquired land.
Mr. Dias, learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant submitted that the land of Chopdekar''s, the claimant in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/1990 and the acquired land are similar and the acquired land had direct access from the main road through the factory of Mr. Hede which was situated by the side of the acquired property. He, therefore, submitted that the reference Court was justified in awarding the same compensation as awarded to Chopdekars. He further submitted that the acquired property of Chopdekars was admeasuring 6125 square metres whereas the acquired land is 2750 square metres and therefore no deduction is warranted from the compensation awarded in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/1990.
I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Dias, learned Advocate for the respondents and perused the record.
Although oral and documentary evidence was led by the respondent/claimant, the reference Court preferred to rely upon the Award dated 15.10.1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 22/1990 which was arising out of the same Notification. I do not find any error having been committed by the learned Judge. It is well settled that the compensation fixed by the reference Court arising out of the same Notification would be the best piece of evidence for fixing the market rate of the other properties acquired by the same Notification and appropriate deductions would have to be made in case there is some difference between the land acquired and the land in respect of which the compensation has been already determined. In the present case the evidence led by the claimants as well as by the appellants herein discloses that the nature of both the lands was same. Both were agricultural properties and the nature of the soil was the same. However the evidence led by the claimants as well as the appellants herein discloses that the acquired land was about 500 metres away from the property of Chopodekars. The Plan which has been made available for my perusal which has not been disputed clearly discloses that Chopdekars property was abutting the road leading to Banastarim Bridge whereas the acquired land was situated about 500 metres on the inner side. It also discloses that the property of Chopdekars was abutting the road leading to Banastarim Bridge. In so far as the evidence of Subhash Chandra Bhobe Aw 3 that the acquired land had access from the main road is concerned, I am unable to place any reliance since the claimant himself has not stated so in his evidence. Moreover, there is no other evidence on record to substantiate that the acquired land had any motorable access.
In case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, the Apex Court has laid down positive and negative factors which have to be considered by a Court while fixing the compensation. In terms of the said Judgment the proximity to a road and the smallness of a size are positive factors whereas the largeness of area, situation in the interior at a distance from the road are negative factors. In the present case the fact that the acquired land had no motorable access and had no frontage on the road would be definitely negative factors. In so far as largeness of the plot is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Dias that since the land belonging to Chopdekars was 6125 square metres and the land acquired of the respondent was 2750 square metres, this should be considered as a positive factor. Having regard to difference in area, I do not find that this is a plus factor in favour of the respondent. Since the acquired land was not abutting the road and had no motorable access I deem it proper to deduct 20% from the rate fixed by a reference Court in respect of the property of Chopdekars. Thus, the respondent is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 64/-per square metre. Needless to mention the respondent is also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act.
In view of above, I hold that the respondent is entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 64/-per square metre in respect of the acquired land alongwith all the statutory benefits under the Act.
The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.