AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F. M. REIS, J
Heard Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 31.03.2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 55/2005 whereby a reference preferred by the respondent was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.35/-per square metre besides statutory benefits.
Pursuant to a notification dated 15.10.2001, land belonging to the respondent admeasuring an area of 21675 square metres situated at Village Velim bearing survey Nos. 380/9, 380/10, 380/11, 381/4, 381/5, 381/6, 381/7, 381/9, 381/10, 381/11, 381/12 and 381/13 were acquired for the development of Government Village School play ground. By an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11 of the said Act, the respondent was offered compensation at the rate of Rs.8/-per square metre for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent preferred a reference u/s 18 of the said Act and sought compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.50/-per square metre. By judgment and award dated 31.03.2006 the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.35/-per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the respondent has failed to establish the comparability of the land acquired with the award at Exhibit 16. The learned Counsel pointed out that the land acquired in the present case is situated at Velim Village whereas the land which is the subject matter of award at Exhibit 16 is situated at Ambelim Village. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to establish the comparability of the land acquired with the land which was subject matter of Exhibit 16. The learned counsel further pointed out that on the basis of material on record, the Reference Court was not justified to enhance the compensation and fix the market value for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.35/-per square metre. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence of the respondent as well as the expert witness relied upon by the respondent and pointed out that there is no evidence produced by the respondent which discharges the burden cast on the respondent to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned counsel as such submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the land which was subject matter of the acquisition at Exhibit 16 is located in the adjoining Village of Ambelim which is comparable to the land acquired. The learned Counsel further pointed out that besides examining the respondent, the evidence of AW2 who is an Engineer, conclusively establishes the comparability of the land acquired with the land which was subject matter of the said notification. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and pointed out that there is sufficient material on record to establish that the land which was subject matter of the acquisition in the present case is comparable to the land which was subject matter of the acquisition at Exhibit 16. The learned Counsel as such submits that the above appeal deserves to be rejected.
On the basis of the submissions of the learned Counsels, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal:-
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.35/-per square metre?
With regard to the contention of the learned Government Advocate that there is no comparability of the land acquired in the present acquisition with the land which was subject matter of the acquisition at Exhibit 16, I find that on the basis of evidence of AW2, the respondent has established that the land acquired was comparable to the land which was subject matter of Exhibit 16. The appellants have also examined AW1 who has stated the comparability of the land acquired. In any event, while disposing of First Appeal No. 110 of 2007, today, this Court has fixed the compensation in respect of the land which was belonging to the respondent situated in the same village at Velim on the basis of the award at Exhibit 16. For the reasons stated in the said judgment, I find that the land which was subject matter of Exhibit 16 is comparable to the land which was subject matter of the present acquisition situated at Velim Village. As such, the contention of Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants that the land situated at Ambelim Village cannot be compared with the land situated at Velim Village cannot be accepted. On the basis of material on record, the Reference Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the land which was subject matter of Exhibit 16 can form the basis for determining the market value for the land acquired. In the present case, the Reference Court has rightly fixed the escalation at the rate of 7.5% per annum taking note of the fact that the land is located in Velim village. This Court while disposing of First Appeal No. 110 of 2007 has also fixed the escalation at the rate of 7.5% per annum in respect of the land acquired in Velim village. Considering the said aspect, I find that the market value of the land fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.35/-per square metre cannot be said to be unjust and exorbitant. The Reference Court has rightly fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.35/-per square metre whilst considering the well-settled principles of law in determining the market value for the land acquired. Hence, point for determination is answered accordingly. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above appeal which stands accordingly dismissed.