Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 276 (BOM)

State of Goa v. Prashant Anant Naik

2012-02-07

F.M.REIS

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard Shri S. Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. None for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 10.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 18/97. Pursuant to a notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") dated 10.10.1985, the appellants have acquired land for laying pipeline and service road of 160 MLD Salaulim water supply project from Mullem to St. Jose de Areal. The area involved in the present proceedings admeasures 1150 square metres from the property surveyed under No.179/1, an area of 725 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 179/3, an area of 140 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 179/4 and area of 1175 square metres from the property surveyed under No.179/5 of Mullem Village. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, dated 17.03.1988, a sum of Rs. 7/- per square metre was offered for the land acquired. In view of the dispute raised between the parties including the respondent herein and a person claiming to be a tenant, the dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 30 of the said Act to the learned District Judge. 3. The respondent also filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of the compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.50/- per square metre for the land acquired. By the impugned judgment and award dated 10.10.2000, the reference preferred by the respondent was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at Rs.23/- per square metre. Being aggrieved with the said amount, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has relied upon an award at ExhibitAW1/B passed by the Reference Court which had otherwise become final. He further submitted that there was no evidence adduced by the respondent to establish the comparability of the land acquired with the land subject matter of the said award. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the similarity has not been established, the question of relying upon such award would not arise at all. He further submitted that there was no evidence adduced by the respondent to establish the comparability of the land acquired with the land subject matter of the said award. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the similarity has not been established, the question of relying upon such award would not arise at all. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and pointed out that there was no material evidence adduced by the respondent to establish the comparability of the land acquired with the land subject matter of the said award. The learned Counsel further submitted that whilst passing the award under Section II of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the said Act for adjudication of the dispute between the respondent and a person claiming to be a tenant and as such, according to him, the applicant is not entitled to claim any compensation in respect of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court has not considered this aspect whilst passing the impugned judgment and consequently the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Additional Government Advocate further pointed out that the applicant would be entitled to claim compensation only in case the reference under Section 30 of the said Act is decided in favour of the appellant. The learned Counsel as such submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The respondent though served failed to remain present. 5. Upon hearing the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and on perusal of the records, the following point arises for my determination in the present appeal: POINT OF DETERMINA'TION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.23/- per square metre? 6. I have carefully perused the evidence on record as well as the deposition of AW1 Anand Rama Naik who has also produced the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, in Land Acquisition Case No.1/87 dated 13.12.1989 wherein the Reference Court has fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.15/- per square metre. 6. I have carefully perused the evidence on record as well as the deposition of AW1 Anand Rama Naik who has also produced the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, in Land Acquisition Case No.1/87 dated 13.12.1989 wherein the Reference Court has fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.15/- per square metre. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to an appeal preferred before this Court, the matter was remanded to the learned Reference Court and in a fresh award dated 22.03.2000, the Reference Court has fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.21/- per square metre. The Reference Court whilst assessing the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the land which was subject matter of the acquisition in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/87 was surveyed under Nos.182/1 and 182/3 which also belonged to the respondent. The learned Judge has also noted the fact that the land which was subject matter of the acquisition in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/87 is at a distance of about 20 metres away from the land acquired in the present case. The learned Judge has also noted that pursuant to an award passed in the said case dated 22.03.2000, the compensation for the land acquired therein was fixed at Rs.21/- per square metre and taking note of the gap of time between two Section 4 notifications, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation in the present case at the rate of Rs.23/- per square metre. The said evidence is corroborated by the evidence of the other witness who has categorically stated that the land acquired in the present case and the land subject matter of the previous acquisition were close to one and another and the nature of the land was the same. Considering the said evidence, I find that the Reference Court was justified to rely upon the award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/87 as basis for determining the compensation in the present case. The appellants have not led any evidence to establish any dissimilarity with the land acquired and the land subject matter of the said previous acquisition. Considering the material on record and evidence adduced by the appellant, I find that there is no reason for any interference in the detem1ination of the compensation for the land acquired in the present case. 7. Considering the material on record and evidence adduced by the appellant, I find that there is no reason for any interference in the detem1ination of the compensation for the land acquired in the present case. 7. With regard to the contention of Shri Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant to the effect that a reference under Section 30 of the said Act is pending for adjudication before the Reference Court, I find that the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned judgment has directed that the compensation would be paid to the respondent subject to result in the reference under Section 30 of the said Act. As such, the apprehension of the appellant that the respondent would withdraw the amount of compensation without awaiting for the result in the reference under Section 30 of the said Act does not survive. The respondent would be entitled to the compensation only incase the respondent succeeds in the reference under Section 30 of the said Act. 8. In view of the above, I find that the Reference Court has rightly determined the compensation. The compensation shall be paid to the respondent subject to the final adjudication in the reference under Section 30 of the said Act. The point fordetem1inatioll is answered accordingly. 9. Subject to the above, I find no merit in the above appeal which stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.