AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.A. Britto, J.—This appeal is directed against judgment dated 15-7-2005 of the learned reference Court in L.A.C. No. 50/2003 by which compensation payable to the applicants has been enhanced from Rs. 22/- per sq. meter to Rs. 141/- per sq. meter.
The Government had acquired 275 sq. meters of the applicants land from survey No. 251/13 of Raia village. The relevant notification was published on Gazette dated 15-7-2005. This acquisition was made for the purpose of widening and blacktopping of the road from Arlem to Borim in village Raia, which road is a State highway.
By award dated 30-11-1999, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs. 22/-per sq. meter by way of compensation for the acquired land and Rs. 24,680/-for the structures. The learned reference Court has enhanced the compensation payable for the acquired land to Rs. 141/-per sq. meter based on a sale deed-Exh.14 dated 4-10-1994, and thereafter by giving an appreciation of 10% on compounding basis relying on a judgment of the Apex Court in V.M. Salgoacar and Brother Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), . The applicants have not been given any enhancement towards the structures/compound but a sum of Rs. 30,000/-has been awarded as compensation for the trees which were situated in the acquired land. The learned reference Court took a deduction of 66% from the market value of the sale deed dated 4-10-1994 as that was a developed plot of land, on which subsequently a construction was put up, a construction of a building of ground plus two floors .
There is no cross appeal or cross objections filed by the Respondents in this case. The only ground taken was that the deduction which was taken by the learned reference Court was on the higher side but now it is being conceded that the said deduction could not be on the higher side in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa and Anr. v. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Ors. 2009 DJLS 1160 wherein the Apex Court has stated that a long strip of land measuring more than two-third of an acre lying alongside and adjoining the highway could not be treated as land without value or without any potential for development, merely on the ground that the law relating to highways prohibited construction on either side of the highway, upto a depth of 40 meters from the centre of the highway.
In the case at hand, what has been acquired is a strip of land admeasuring a length of about 44 meters and a width ranging from 5 to 7 meters abutting the said highway. It was located in a settlement zone with an old residential house, a building with ground plus two upper floors, etc. What was the distance from the said house or buildings and the acquired strip or for that matter from the center of the said road was not disclosed by the applicants.
Be that as it may, this Court in First Appeal No. 43 of 2006 decided on 20-10-2010 in the case of Mr. Joaquim D''Silva where a similar strip of 350 sq. meters was acquired and was awarded compensation of Rs. 22/-per sq. meter by the Land Acquisition Officer, did not interfere with the award of the learned reference Court which was based on the very same sale deed with a deduction of 66% holding that the Government had nothing to complain about with such a deduction. That judgment was then followed in First Appeal No. 55 of 2006 by judgment dated 20-10-2010 in the case of Mrs. Lidia Barbosa on the principle that once a comparable sale method of valuation of land was adopted for determining the market value of an acquired plot of land it generally should hold good for determination of the market value of several plots of land if the acquisition of all such plots of land is made pursuant to the same preliminary notification. Such a principle has also been adopted by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Balram and Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 747 on the principle that it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners to pay more to some and less to others when the purpose of acquisition is same and lands are identical and similar, though lying in different villages. In the case at hand, the lands are lying on either side of the State Highway in a small stretch of the same village. The L.A. Os inspect the properties before acquisition. Therefore it could be presumed that the lands were similar. They were awarded same compensation by the L.A.O. and, as such the compensation ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs. 141/-per sq. meter by the learned reference Court needs to be maintained.
As a result of the above discussion, no interference is called for with the impugned award and therefore this First Appeal is hereby dismissed.