Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 200 (BOM)

State of Goa v. Vishnu Pai Vernekar

2012-01-27

U.V.BAKRE

body2012
Judgment 1. This Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 02/05/2003 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa (“Reference Court”, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 10 of 1995. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said L. A. Case No. 10 of 1995. 3. By notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (“L. A. Act”, for short) published in the official gazette dated 24/03/1983, the Government acquired land situated at Morombi-O-Grande at Panaji, for the purpose of laying additional conveying main for supplying water to Panaji City, at Morombi-O-Grande. This included an area of 1705 square metres of land from Survey holding no. 260 (part) of village Morombi-o-Grande, belonging to the applicants. By award dated 23/01/1987, the Land Acquisition Officer (“L.A.O.”, for short) offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/-per square metre. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the applicants sought reference under Section 18 of the L. A. Act, claiming that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was Rs. 200/-per square metre and this reference made by the L.A.O. gave rise to said L. A. Case No. 10 of 1995. 4. In support of their case, the applicants examined the applicant no. 1 as AW-1, and a Government Registered Valuer namely Shri Subhash C. N. Bhobe as AW-2. The applicants relied upon three sale deeds each dated 15/1/1985, 3/2/1984 and 19/5/1983. They also relied upon the valuation report prepared by AW-2, under which the acquired land has been valued at Rs. 150/-per square metre. The respondents, on the other hand, examined the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., Works Division, III, Panaji namely Shri. Anand Panchamukhi, as RW-1. 5. The learned Reference Court, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, held that the sale deeds produced by the applicants cannot be used as comparable instances for the purpose of assessing the market value of the acquired land. Since the expert witness namely AW-2/ Subhash had prepared the valuation report based upon the said three sale deeds, the Reference Court also did not consider the said valuation report. The Reference Court relied upon its own Award in the L. A. Case No. 9 of 1995 wherein the Reference Court had awarded Rs. Since the expert witness namely AW-2/ Subhash had prepared the valuation report based upon the said three sale deeds, the Reference Court also did not consider the said valuation report. The Reference Court relied upon its own Award in the L. A. Case No. 9 of 1995 wherein the Reference Court had awarded Rs. 25/-per square metre as the market value of the acquired land which was subject matter of that case. It was found that the acquired land of the present case and acquired land of Shri Balchandra Anant Wagle concerned in the said L. A. Case No. 9 of 1995 were adjoining each other and both were acquired for the same purpose of laying additional conveying main for supplying water to Panaji City at Morombi-o-Grande. The Reference Court therefore enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 15/-to Rs. 25/-per square metre. 6. The respondents are aggrieved by the said enhancement and have filed the present appeal. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate, argued on behalf of the respondents. The Applicants are, however, absent. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate, argued that the Reference Court rightly rejected the sale deeds and the report of the expert, but has erred in holding that the acquired plot had building potentialities. He further contended that the acquired land was sloppy in nature and needed levelling etc. and therefore could not have been compared to any building site. He therefore urged that the impugned Judgment and Award is liable to be set aside. 9. I have gone through the entire material on record. 10. The point that arises for determination is whether the Reference Court has erred in enhancing the compensation. 11. The Reference Court had taken into consideration the amount of compensation awarded by it to the land of Shri Balchandra Anant Wagle, bearing survey No. 259 of Morombi-O-Grande, in the L. A. Case No. 9 of 1995. Admittedly, the said acquired land of Shri Balchandra Anant Wagle and the present acquired land from survey no. 260 of Morombi-O-Grande are adjoining each other. Admittedly, the said acquired land of Shri Balchandra Anant Wagle and the present acquired land from survey no. 260 of Morombi-O-Grande are adjoining each other. The land of Shri Balchandra Anant Wagle was also acquired for the same purpose of laying additional conveying main for supplying water to Panaji city at Morombi-O-Grande and the notification under Section 4 (1) of the L. A. Act, in respect of the said acquired land is the same which pertains to the acquired land of the present case. Therefore, there can be no dispute that the two lands are similar in nature and therefore there was nothing wrong in taking into account the award passed by the Reference Court in the said L. A. Case No. 10 of 1995. 12. It so happens that said Shri Balchandra Anant Wagle had filed the First Appeal No. 32 of 2003 against the Judgment and Award of the Reference Court, passed on 31/7/2002, in the said L. A. Case No. 9 of 1995 and the respondents had also filed First Appeal No. 53 of 2003 against the same Judgment and Award. By the Judgment dated 23/12/2011, this court has dismissed the First Appeal No. 53 of 2003 filed by the respondents and has partly allowed the First Appeal No. 32 of 2003 filed by said Shri Balchandra Anant Wagle. The land value awarded by the Reference Court, at the rate of 25/-per square metre, has been further enhanced by this court to Rs. 50/-per square metre, in respect of the acquired land of said Shri Balchandra Anant Wagle. In no circumstances, therefore, can it be said that the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation. In fact, on account of common Judgment and Award of this court in First Appeals No. 32 of 2003 and 53 of 2003, the applicants would become entitled to further enhancement from Rs. 25/-per square metre to Rs. 50/-per square metre. The present appeal filed by the respondents, therefore, does not bear merits and is therefore liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.