Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1353 (BOM)

State of Goa v. Govind N. Keni

2010-09-16

A.P.LAVANDE

body2010
JUDGMENT A.P. Lavande. J.-By this appeal the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 20.1.2003 passed by the District Judge. North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 71 of 2000 partly allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 ('The Act" for short). 2. Vide notification dated 21.10.1998 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act which was published on 4.12.1998, the Government acquired land belonging to the respondent admeasuring 1950 sq. metres bearing survey No. 34/7 of Goa Velha for public purpose. The respondent/claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 350/per sq. metre. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 25/- per sq. metre. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 350/- per sq. metre. 3. In Land Acquisition Case No. 71 of 2000, the claimant examined himself AW-1, Expert Subhaschandra Bhobe, AW-2. The appellants herein examined Bramhanand Desai. RW-1., The claimant in his cross-examination relied upon four sale deeds in respect of various plots. The details of the said sale deeds are as follows : Sr. No. Date of Sale Deeds Plot Area and situation Rate per sq. metre Distance from acquired land 1. 1. 2316/1997 -Exhibit 13 Undivided half share in plot of 300 sq. mtrs. at Neura Pequeno Rs.437.50 500 to 600 mtrs. 2. 213/1998-Exhibit 14 Undivided half share in plot of 300 sq. mtrs. at Neura Pequeno Rs. 687.50 500 to 600 mtrs. 3. 30/10/1996-Exhibit 15 410 sq. mtrs. at Goa Velha Rs. 609.75 1.5 kms. 4. 2218/1996-Exhibit 16 330 sq. mtrs. at Goa Velha Rs. 606/- 2.2 kms. 4. The Reference Court refused to place reliance on either of the a sale deeds as well as the report of the expert which was also based on the said sale deeds and fixed the market rate at Rs. 50/- per sq. metre on the ground that the acquired land was fit for construction purpose after converting the same from agricultural use to nonagricultural use. 5. Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court after refusing to place reliance on any of four sale deeds ought not to have enhanced the compensation in favour of the respondent and ought to have rejected the reference. 5. Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court after refusing to place reliance on any of four sale deeds ought not to have enhanced the compensation in favour of the respondent and ought to have rejected the reference. She further submitted that the respondent/claimant had not led any evidence to justify grant of higher compensation in respect of the acquired land. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the Reference Court ought to have considered the sale deeds produced by the claimant in support of his claim for higher compensation since the sale deed plots were in respect of plots within the range of 500 metres to 2 kms. He further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have considered the said sale deeds and after making appropriate deductions ought to have awarded adequate compensation to the claimant. He further submitted that since the value of the plot sold by the said sale deeds executed between 1996 to 1998 vary between Rs. 437.50 to Rs. 687.50, the compensation granted at the rate of Rs. 50/- to the claimant in respect of the acquired lands needs no interference by this Court. 7. In view of the rival submission and the findings given by the Reference Court, the following point for determination arises in the appeal. Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 50/- per sq. metre? If not, what compensation the respondent/claimant is entitled to? 8. As stated above, the Reference Court refused to place reliance upon the four sale deeds on the ground that they were developed plots and as such they could not be compared with the acquired land. In my opinion, the Reference Court has clearly fallen into error. The four sale deeds plots situated at a distance of about 500 metres to 2 kms from the acquired land. No doubt, the sale deed plots were developed plots and as such, could not have been said to be similar to the acquired land. However, it is well settled that in such cases that appropriate deductions have to be made by considering factors like development charges, nature of the acquired plot of land, etc. No doubt, the sale deed plots were developed plots and as such, could not have been said to be similar to the acquired land. However, it is well settled that in such cases that appropriate deductions have to be made by considering factors like development charges, nature of the acquired plot of land, etc. It is also well settled that on account of development, deduction can vary from 25% to 75% as has been held by the Apex Court. 9. Considering the price mentioned in the four sale deeds which vary from 437.50 to 687.50, the market rate fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 50/- per sq. metre cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference by this Court. It is also well settled that in fixing the market rate of the acquired land some amount of guess work is possible and there is no mathematical formula to determine the market rate of the acquired land. 10. Therefore, in my considered view, this is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere with the impugned judgment and award fixing the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 50/- per sq. metre. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.