AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U.V. Bakre, J.—Heard Mr. H.D. Naik and Mr. M.P. Almeida, learned Counsel for respective parties.
By consent, this common judgment shall dispose of all the above appeals and cross-objections as the subject matter is land acquired under the same notification.
First Appeal No. 322 of 2006 and cross-objection no. 9 of 2007 arise out of the judgment and award dated 30.8.2006 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, FTC-II ("Reference Court" for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 151/2000.
First Appeal No. 323 of 2006 and cross-objection no. 8 of 2007 arise out of judgment and award dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 148/2000.
First Appeal No. 324 of 2006 and cross-objection No. 7 of 2007 arise out of the judgment and award dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2006.
Lastly First Appeal No. 327/2006 arises out of the judgment and award dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 147/2000.
Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Cases.
Vide notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("L.A. Act" for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 05.10.1987, land was acquired for setting up an industrial estate at Verna plateau. This included land admeasuring 6575 square metres from survey no. 31 (part) of Nagoa-Verna village of Salcete Taluka which was the subject matter of the Land Acquisition Cases no. 151/2000 and 148/2000, filed by co-owners of the said acquired land. The said acquisition also included an area of 3800 square metres from survey no. 88/1 (tenanted land); 800 square metres from survey no. 88/2 (tenanted land); 1625 square metres from survey no. 88/3 (tenanted land); 4450 square metres from survey no. 88/4 (tenanted land); 2750 square metres from survey no. 88/5 (tenanted land); 1075 square metres from survey nos. 88/6 and 8 (tenanted land); 800 square metres from survey nos. 88/7 and 9 (tenanted land); 150 square metres from survey no. 88/10 (tenanted land); and 13600 square metres from survey no. 88/11 (untenanted land), all from Quelossim village of Mormugao Taluka, which lands were subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2000. The same acquisition also included an area of 150 square metres of land from survey no. 67 of Quelossim village of Mormugao Taluka, which was subject matter of the Land Acquisition Case No. 147/2000. By award dated 29.11.1994, the Land Acquisition Officer ("L.A.O." for short) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square metre for the acquired land from survey no. 31 (part) of Nagoa-Verna village, in Land Acquisition Cases No. 148/2000 and 151/2000. He awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.50/- per square metre for acquired tenanted paddy land from survey nos. 88/1, 88/2, 88/3, 88/4; 88/5, 88/6 & 8, 88/7 & 9, and 88/10 and at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square metres for acquired untenanted land from survey no. 88/11, all from Quelossim village, in Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2000. The L.A.O. awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square metre for acquired land of 150 square metres from survey no. 67 of Quelossim village, in Land Acquisition case No. 147/2000. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., the applicants filed applications u/s 18 of the L.A. Act before the L.A.O. which gave rise to the above Land Acquisition Cases.
In all the cases, the applicants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square metre. In Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2000, the applicant had further claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards two houses and a rubble stone wall. Issues were framed in each case as per the claims of the applicants. In Land Acquisition Cases No. 148/2000 and 151/2000, the applicants examined each of them as AW 1, and a Consulting Engineer, Mahendra Kakule as AW 2. In Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2000, the applicant examined his power of attorney holder, namely Shri Ashley D''Souza as AW 1 and the said Consultant Engineer, Shri Mahendra Kakule, as AW 2. Lastly, in Land Acquisition Case No. 147/20000, the applicant examined herself as AW 1 and said Consulting Engineer, Shri Mahendra Kakule as AW 2. The respondents examined Mr. Parmanand Gaonkar, the Civil Engineer then working for Industrial Development Corporation, as RW 1 in all the said cases.
Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court, in Land Acquisition cases No. 148/2000, 151/2000, and 86/2000, fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 49/- per square metre. In Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2000, the applicant did not produce any evidence with regard to his claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards two houses and a rubble stone wall and hence the said claim was rejected. In Land Acquisition Case No. 147/2000, the market value of the acquired land has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 36/- per square metre.
Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 produced before this Court a copy of the judgment dated 17.9.2013 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 80/2008 and submitted that the lands concerned in this appeal and in the present appeals were acquired for same purpose of setting up Industrial Estate at Verna plateau, Salcete-Goa, under the same notification issued on 05.10.1987. He submitted that the land in the said appeal and the lands in the present appeals are similar in nature and hence in view of the said judgment of this Court, the compensation fixed at the rate of Rs. 49/- per square metre is not correct market value and that the same be reduced accordingly. Mr. Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1, further urged that the applicant in Land Acquisition Case No. 147/2000 has not filed any cross-objections in First Appeal No. 327/2000 and hence the question of enhancing the compensation for the acquired land in that case does not arise. Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel for the applicants, did not dispute that the acquired land which was subject matter of First appeal No. 80/2008 was similar to the acquired lands of the present cases.
I have perused the original record and proceedings in all the concerned land Acquisition cases and considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
The point for determination is as to what should be the true market value of the acquired land in all the above cases?
The First Appeal No. 80/2008 had arisen out of the Judgment and award dated 07/09/2013 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 72/2000, wherein land admeasuring 4450 square metres from survey no. 88/4 of Quelossim village of Mormugao Taluka was acquired for same purpose of setting up Industrial Estate at Verna plateau, Salcete-Goa, under the same notification bearing No. 22/27/86-RD dated 13/08/1987, issued u/s 4(1) of the L.A. Act and published in the Official Gazette on 05.10.1987, under which lands which are subject matter of the present cases were also acquired for the same purpose. The L.A.O. had fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 4.50/- per square metre, that being tenanted land. The Reference Court had fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 47/- per square metre and this Court reduced it to Rs. 40/- per square metre. This Court found that the compensation for another piece of land which was subject matter of the same notification came to be assessed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 145/2006 dated 17.9.2012 whereby compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square metre. In the said First Appeal No. 80/2013, the acquired land was tenanted land from survey No. 88/4 of Quelossim village. In First Appeal No. 324 of 2006 and cross-objection No. 7 of 2007, above, besides the acquired land from same survey no. 88/4, other land from survey nos. 88/1, 88/2, 88/3, 88/5, 88/6, 88/7, 88/8, 88/9 and 88/10, of Quelossim village was involved, which was also tenanted land. There can be no dispute regarding the similarity of said lands as they are all from the same survey no. 88 of Quelossim village. The question of invoking restrictions under the Goa Land Use Act does not arise in respect of the above lands since the Goa Land Use Act came into force in the year 1990 whereas the land was acquired in the year 1987. The First Appeal No. 145/2006, referred to in First Appeal No. 80/2013, had arisen out of the Judgment and Award dated 30/01/2006, passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 71/2000, wherein acquired land admeasuring 38,200 square metres from survey no. 98 (part) was involved. The said acquisition was also for the same purpose of setting up Industrial Estate at Verna plateau, Salcete-Goa, under the same notification bearing No. 22/27/86-RD dated 13/08/1987, issued u/s 4(1) of the L.A. Act and published in the Official Gazette on 05.10.1987. The Division Bench of this Court in the above First Appeal No. 145/2006 has taken a view that the compensation for the acquired land should be at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square metre. There is no dispute that the nature of acquired land involved in the cases now before me are similar to the acquired lands involved in First Appeal No. 80/2013 and First Appeal No. 145/2006. I am, therefore, of the view that the compensation in respect of the acquired land involved in First Appeal No. 322/2006/Cross-objection No. 09/2007; First Appeal No. 323/2006/Cross-Objection No. 08/2006; and First Appeal No. 324/2006/Cross Objection No. 07/2007, should be reduced accordingly from Rs. 49/- per square metre to Rs. 40/- per square metre.
In First Appeal No. 327/2006, acquired land admeasuring only 150 square metres from survey no. 67/1 of Nagoa-Verna village, was involved. By Judgment and Award dated 29/11/1994, the compensation awarded by L.A.O. at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square metre was enhanced to Rs. 36/- per square metre, by the Reference Court. No cross-objections have been filed by the applicant in this case which means that the applicant is satisfied with the compensation at the rate of Rs. 36/- per square metre. Admittedly, stone quarry activities were going on in the said acquired land prior to the acquisition. The learned Reference Court found that the acquired land pertaining to Award dated 27/02/1992, in Land Acquisition Case No. 169/88 was most similar and comparable instance. The relevant date for determination of compensation in the said Land Acquisition case No. 169/88 was 15/11/1984. The acquired land admeasured 975 square metres and the District Court had awarded compensation of Rs. 30/- per square metre. The similarities have been mentioned by the Reference Court, in detail. However, since the acquired land was stone quarry prior to acquisition, the Reference Court deducted 10% from Rs. 30/- which came to Rs. 27/- per square metre and further since there was gap of about three years, 10% annual increase on compounding basis from 15/11/1984 to 05/10/1987 was given and the compensation was ultimately fixed at Rs. 36/- per square metre. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 has failed to point out any convincing reasons for interfering with the judgment and award, in this case. Hence the First Appeal No. 327/2006 deserves to be dismissed.
In view of the above, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(a) First Appeals No. 322/2006 and 323/2006 are partly allowed whereas Cross Objections No. 9/2007 and 8/2007 are dismissed. The market value of the acquired land from survey no. 31 (part) of Nagao-Verna Village, which is subject matter of the Land Acquisition Case Nos. 151/2000 and 148/2000, is fixed at Rs. 40/- per square metre. The impugned Judgments in the above cases stand modified accordingly.
(b) First Appeal No. 324/2006 is partly allowed and Cross Objection No. 7/2007 is rejected. The market value of the acquired lands which are subject matter of the Land Acquisition Case No. 86/2000 is fixed at Rs. 40/- per square metre. The impugned Judgment in the above case stands modified accordingly.
(c) The applicants, in Land Acquisition Cases No. 151/2000, 148/2000, and 86/200, shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits and costs of Rs. 1000/- as awarded by the reference Court.
(d) First Appeal No. 327/2006 is dismissed.