AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 27th December, 2002 passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2001 partly allowing the reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (''The Act'' for short).
Vide notification issued u/s 4 of the Act and published in the Official Gazette dated 25th November, 1997, the Government of Goa acquired lands from village Nagorcem, Palolem for public purpose - construction of Sadolxem foot bridge and approaches at Canacona in V.P. Nagorcem, Palolem and Poinguinim. An area of 1320 square meters belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired land. The same included 760 square meters from Survey No. 307/1 part and 560 square meters from Survey No. 307/3 part. By award dated 31st May, 2000, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (The SLAO) awarded Rs. 11/- per square meter in respect of the land of the respondent. The respondent sought reference u/s 18 of the Act and claimed Rs. 100/- per square meter. The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 16/- per square meter.
In Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2001, the respondent examined Anil Kamat AW1- attorney of respondent, Khushali Mokhardkar-AW2 and Santosh Molu Naik Gaonkar-AW3. The respondent produced sale deed dated 31st May, 1996 by which an area of 238 square meters was sold at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square meters and award dated 30th October, 1995 in Land Acquisition Case No. 206/1995 given by Reference Court by which compensation at the rate of Rs. 32/- was awarded in respect of the land bearing survey Nos. 43/3, 23/29 and 22/10. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 31st May, 1996 executed between Premabai Dessai and others on one side and Khushali Parshu Mokhardkar-AW2 on the other side by which an area of 238.40 square meters was sold for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- The Reference Court placed reliance upon the said sale deed and considering 10 % increase every year, fixed the market price of the sale deed as on the date of publication of Section 4 notification at Rs. 16/- per square meter. Thereafter, the Reference Court deducted 40 % on the ground of dissimilarity since the sale deed land was bounded on public road; whereas the acquired land was a sloppy and rocky. The Reference Court further deducted 35 % on the ground that the sale deed plot was 238 square meters; whereas the acquired land was 1320 square meters. The Reference Court further deducted 20 % on the ground that the sale deed plot was situated closer to market and had better potential value as compared to the acquired land, which was in the interior. The Reference Court further made deduction of 10 % on the ground that both the plots were dissimilar having regard to the fact that the sale deed plot was a strip of land. The Reference Court arrived at the rate of Rs. 16/- per square meter.
Mr. Vahidulla, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the sale deed dated 31st May, 1996 for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land since both the lands were not similar. He further submitted that in any event, the Reference Court ought to have made more deductions and if the same were made, the market rate fixed by the SLAO could not be said to be unjust and unfair. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned award be quashed and set aside and the reference sought by the respondent be rejected.
As stated above, none appears on behalf of the respondent, though served.
In view of the submissions made by Mr. Vahidulla, the following point arises for determination in the appeal:
Whether the market rate of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 16/- per square meter is just and fair?
Having considered the submissions made by Mr. Vahidulla, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the exercise done by the Reference Court cannot be said to be patently illegal. The Reference Court has made above referred deductions on several counts for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land on the basis of the plot of land, which was purchased by AW2 Shri Khushali P. Mokhardkar. Having regard to the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the plot sold by sale deed dated 31st May, 1996, it cannot be said that the Reference Court has erred in fixing the market rate at the rate at Rs. 16/- per square meter. In any event, the increase in the value of the acquired land granted by the Reference Court is Rs. 5/- per square meter as compared to the market rate fixed by the SLAO. The market rate fixed by the Reference Court cannot be said to be patently illegal or unwarranted justifying interference of this Court in appeal against the impugned award. The exercise undertaken by the Reference Court cannot be said to be illegal.
For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.