Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1920 (BOM)

Land Acquisition Officer v. Eurico da Silva

2013-09-20

NARESH H.PATIL

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. These two appeals arise out of the Judgment and Award passed on 14th October, 2002, passed in Land Acquisition Case No.79/98 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao. 2. The respondents in First Appeal No.25/2003 issued the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) in respect of acquisition of the subject immovable property owned by the claimant. It is not disputed by the contesting parties that the possession of the subject land was taken over on 18th November, 1990. The area acquired was 1300 sq. metres. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award on 26th April, 1990, granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/-per sq. metre. 3. The claimant preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.45/- per. sq. metre. 4. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the reference Court, both the parties filed present first appeals. These appeals are being disposed of by common judgment. 5. The claimant examined himself as AW.1 and the valuer AW.2 in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation. During the course of his examination, the claimant produced on record a copy of sale deed dated 6/8/1982 in respect of a plot of land admeasuring 825 sq. metres, purchased for an amount of Rs.25,000/-. The said land is situated at a distance of 2.5 kilometres away from the acquired land. A photo copy of the sale deed was taken on record and marked Exhibit AW.1/D by consent of the parties. Another sale instance was cited and the claimant produced a copy of the sale deed dated 3/3/1981 in respect of a plot of land purchased by one Carmelin Crasto Carevalho, admeasuring 725 sq. metres for a total sum of Rs.10,000/-. The land in the said sale deed was situated at a distance of about 2 and half kilometres away from the acquired land. Yet another sale deed dated 23rd January, 1990 was relied upon by the claimant, a copy of which was produced on record, in respect of a plot of land admeasuring 1278.79 sq. metres, for a sum of Rs.1,21,670.20 paise. This land was also situated at a distance of about 2.5 kms. away from the acquired land. Yet another sale deed dated 23rd January, 1990 was relied upon by the claimant, a copy of which was produced on record, in respect of a plot of land admeasuring 1278.79 sq. metres, for a sum of Rs.1,21,670.20 paise. This land was also situated at a distance of about 2.5 kms. away from the acquired land. The claimant also produced a copy of an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 20th December, 1988, in respect of acquisition of land by notification dated 25th March, 1987, which land was situated about 2.5 kms., away from the acquired land. According to the claimant AW.1, the acquired land was fit for construction purposes. It had hard soil and had access to the property. Electricity, water and other amenities were also available at the acquired land. There were houses around the acquired land, including a Chapel. The said Chapel was about 600 metres away from the acquired land. Church of Nuvem, and High School, along Margao-Cortalim road, were about 1500 metres away from the acquired land. The claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.200/-per sq. metre. 6. During the cross examination of the claimant by the respondents, the claimant denied the suggestion that the acquired land had no access and that it was not a developed land for construction purposes. The closest market to the acquired land was at Nuvem which was about 1.5 kms., away from the acquired land. Certain other suggestions put to the claimant on behalf of the State were denied by the claimant. The suggestions were in respect of distance of church, high school, and market from the acquired land. It was suggested that the acquired land and the lands under the sale instances were not comparable for assessing the marketability of the acquired land. To the suggestion that due to construction of the road in the acquired land, the value of the unacquired land got increased, the claimant replied that he had approached the acquired land by car and the road is shown in the survey plan Exhibit AW.1/B. 7. AW.2 Ernesto Moniz had submitted the valuation report on the request of the claimant in respect of the acquired property situated at Nuvem under Survey No. 15/4. According to him, a part of the acquired land was a garden land. The acquired land was accessible by road, but was not asphalted. AW.2 Ernesto Moniz had submitted the valuation report on the request of the claimant in respect of the acquired property situated at Nuvem under Survey No. 15/4. According to him, a part of the acquired land was a garden land. The acquired land was accessible by road, but was not asphalted. The unacquired land remained the same, giving indication of the position of land, according to the witness. The witness further deposed that the property had a sloppy ground, giving permissible gradient from west to east direction and hard morum soil formation. The acquisition had divided the property into two parts. In the eastern portion of the acquired area, there was a farm house. The property was surrounded by residential houses, existing in the surrounding property. Other amenities were available at a distance of about 1 km., from the acquired land. He deposed that the property was serviced by electricity, water supply, as well as by transport. The location of the property was ideally suited for construction purposes, as it had good potentiality for construction purpose. He had considered three sale deeds and an award of the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of valuation. 8. During the cross examination, the witness stated that the land mentioned in the sale instance dated 6th August, 1982 was a levelled land, which was situated in the residential area. He denied the suggestion that the said land was not comparable to the acquired land. He also denied the suggestion that the land was accessible by road and that it was 3 and half kilometres away from the acquired land. The State had put many suggestions to the witness, which the witness denied. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the claimant were not comparable ones for ascertaining the correct market rate of the acquired land. The appropriate deductions were not granted by the reference Court while determining the compensation. The reference Court committed an error by granting increase of 10% addition to the price every year from the year 1982 to 1987 while arriving at the figure of Rs.45/- per sq. metre as the market rate for the subject-land. The learned Counsel submitted that being Village site, at the most, the reference Court could have added 5% per year to the price determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. metre as the market rate for the subject-land. The learned Counsel submitted that being Village site, at the most, the reference Court could have added 5% per year to the price determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering the distance of 2.5 kms. from the acquired land, the sale instances ought to have been discarded by the reference Court as not being comparable ones. The learned Counsel submits that certain clarifications are required to be made by this Court in respect of the calculations of the amount under various provisions of the Act, as according to the claimant, possession of the subject-land was taken much prior to the issuance of Section 4 notification. It is the case of the claimant that in view of the work order issued on 24th July, 1983, the possession of the subject-land was already taken over. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the State failed to lead any contrary evidence as against the evidence led by the claimant. Except for the suggestions, the State failed to elicit specific replies from the claimant during the cross examination on substantial issues to counter the claim made in respect of the enhancement of compensation. There is no reason to discard the valuation report submitted by AW.2 who was expert and had submitted the report after visiting the site and considering the entire record. The Counsel submits that the acquired land had potentiality and important installations like high school, church and other amenities were available at a distance of about 1 km., away from the acquired land. The distance of 2.5 kms., as stated by the State, is a road distance. Therefore, the acquired land cannot be said to be situated at a far away place from the site of the land. The learned Counsel further submits that the claimant placed on record comparable sale instances and led sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the acquired land had enough potentiality for getting the enhanced compensation as claimed by the claimant. On the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the State in respect of grant of higher compensation, including grant of interest from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification in the Official Gazette, it was submitted that in view of the law laid down in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. On the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the State in respect of grant of higher compensation, including grant of interest from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification in the Official Gazette, it was submitted that in view of the law laid down in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. vs. D.D.A. & Ors., 2004(5) All MR (S.C.) 435, the compensation and other benefits would be calculated and paid to the claimant from the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. 11. I have gone through the record, depositions of the witnesses and the reasoning adopted by the reference Court. 12. It has come on record through the evidence of the claimant that at a distance of about 2.5 kms., from the acquired land, the surrounding land was already utilised for school, church and other purposes. The sale instances relied upon by the claimant were also from the same area. Considering the material collected and placed before the Land Acquisition Officer, the compensation was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. metre. The claimant brought on record evidence in support of the claim for enhancement of compensation. The evidence led by the claimant in respect of the accessibility to the acquired land and the comparability of the sale instances had to be considered, as the State did not place on record any contrary evidence as against the evidence led by the claimant. 13. The Valuation Report perused by AW.2. AW.2, in detail, narrates the location of the acquired property, surrounding areas and the potentiality. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that 10% annual addition to the price ought not to have been granted. Considering the evidence on record, potentiality of the land, and all other aspects of the matter, the reference Court granted 10% additions annually. The sale instances placed on record by the claimant are in respect of the properties which were at a distance of 2.5 kms., away from the acquired land. It was submitted that the said distance was a road distance. Otherwise crow-fly distance, according to the learned Counsel for the State, was 1.5 kms. 14. The sale instances placed on record by the claimant are in respect of the properties which were at a distance of 2.5 kms., away from the acquired land. It was submitted that the said distance was a road distance. Otherwise crow-fly distance, according to the learned Counsel for the State, was 1.5 kms. 14. Considering the evidence on record, the reasoning adopted by the reference Court and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and award challenged by both the contesting parties. It is clarified that the claimant shall be entitled to all the benefits under the Act, as awarded by the reference Court from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification in the Official Gazette, dated 16.7.1987 15. Both the appeals stand dismissed.