AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U.V. Bakre, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The aforesaid First Appeal as well as Cross-objection are directed against the judgment and award dated 26/06/2002 passed by the learned Additional District, Judge, Margao (''Reference Court'', for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 71/1994.
Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case.
Vide notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (''L.A. Act'', for short) published in the Official Gazette dated 17/09/1987, land was acquired for laying pipeline and service road of 160 M.L.A. S.W.S.P. at Nuvem and Raia villages of Salcete Taluka. This included land admeasuring 215 square metres from Survey No. 307/62 belonging to the applicant. By award dated 15/04/1989, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square metre to the applicant. Not being satisfied with the offer made by L.A.O., the applicant made an application u/s 18 of the L.A. Act before the L.A.O. for reference. That gave rise to Land Acquisition Case No. 71/1994.
The applicant, in the reference application, stated that the acquired land was plain levelled land abutting the main road running from Raia to Nuvem having light and water facility by the side of the said road. She alleged that the acquired land was close to Margao City and was suitable for being used for industry or for constructing buildings. The applicant claimed that the market value of the acquired land ought not to be less than Rs. 150/- per square metre. She claimed severance charges for the land which was severed. She also claimed compensation on account of compound wall which was allegedly demolished.
Learned Reference Court framed issues based on the claims made by the applicant. The applicant examined her power of attorney, namely Celina Barboza as AW1, the Civil Engineer and valuer by name Ernesto Moniz as AW2 and one Jose Almeida as AW3. Respondents did not examine any witness.
Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court found that the acquired land had building potentialities. The Reference Court declined to take into account two sale deeds produced by AW3, Jose Almeida since they were at a distance far away from the acquired land. However, the Reference Court relied upon the sale deed dated 12/11/1986 produced by AW1 as exhibit AW1/B and by making deduction of 40% to the price of the said sale deed, fixed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 72/- per square metre. The Reference Court held that there was no evidence regarding the enhancement for demolished protective compound wall or regarding any severance charges. Accordingly, the reference was partly allowed and the rate of compensation for the acquired land was fixed at Rs. 72/- per square metre. Other statutory benefits and costs of Rs. 1000/- were also awarded to the applicant.
Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Reference Court, the respondents have filed the present appeal challenging the enhancement made by the learned Reference Court, whereas the legal representatives of the applicant have filed Cross-objection thereby claiming further enhancement in compensation as also for grant of other claims made by the applicant in the Reference Application.
Mr. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the deduction of 40% made by the learned Reference Court is on lower side, considering the nature and size of the sale deed plot, vis-a-vis the acquired land. He also submitted that there was absolutely no evidence on record insofar as the grant of enhancement for the compound wall or for grant of any severance charges was concerned. He, therefore, submitted that the compensation granted by the Reference Court being on higher side should be adequately reduced.
On the other hand, Mr. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the applicant submitted that the evidence on record established that the acquired land had building potentialities and all necessary amenities were available to it. According to him, there was no justification for deduction of 40% from the sale deed price and that 33% of deduction was reasonable. He further pointed out that the relevant date for determination of the market value was 17/09/1987 and the sale deed relied upon by the Reference Court was dated 12/11/1986, due to which, there was gap of about an year. He submitted that it is a settled principle that there is annual increase in the prices of land by about 10%. He pointed out that the learned Reference Court had not given such increase in the price of the sale deed plot. Learned Counsel therefore urged that the applicant is entitled for such increase. He invited my attention to the plan drawn and proved by AW2, Engineer, Shri Ernesto Moniz and evidence of AW1 as well as AW2, which reveals that an area of 150 square metres which forms a triangle, lying on one side of the acquired land had become land-locked and had been rendered totally useless. He submitted that the Reference Court erred in holding that there was no evidence regarding severance. He, therefore, urged that at least 50% of market value of the acquired land should be granted for the said severed land. He therefore submitted that adequate enhancement be made in the compensation and that severance charges be granted for an area of 150 square metres of land.
The points which arise for my determination are as under:
(a) Whether the applicant is entitled to further increase in the compensation ?
(b) Whether the applicant had established that land admeasuring 150 square metres was severed and rendered useless and hence she was entitled to receive for the same compensation at the rate of 50% of the compensation fixed for the acquired land?
Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I find that the evidence of AW1 and AW2 reveals that the acquired land which was abutting the Manora-Nuvem road had the required amenities like water, electricity in and around and there were residential houses close by. It had facilities of shops, chapel, market, transport, Government Primary school, bank, Post Office, Panchayat Office, etc. within the radius of about 1 Kilometre. There is also evidence on record that the acquired land was plain levelled land and had building potentialities, being part of bigger property admeasuring about 11,000 square metres.
Insofar as the sale deeds produced by AW3, Jose Almeida, are concerned, the same are in respect of the developed plots and situated at Fatorda, whereas the acquired land is situated at Nuvem. The said two sale deeds plots are at far away distance from the acquired land. AW1 has not at all referred to these sale deeds. According to AW2, these sale deed plots are at a distance of about 2.5 kilometres away from the acquired land. Therefore, the said two sale deeds were rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court.
Insofar as the sale deed dated 12/11/1986 produced by AW1 as exhibit AW1/B is concerned, the evidence of AW1 reveals that the nature of the said plot is similar to the acquired land and that the same is at the distance of about 800 metres from her property, if one goes by road and the radial distance was only about 500 metres. The said sale deed plot is towards the southern side of the property of the applicant and is otherwise separated by a drain. AW1 has specifically stated that her land as well as the land of the sale deed had hard muroom soil and both are levelled lands, suitable for construction. She has also stated that her property as well as the sale deed plot abut the road and that both are situated at Raia and are at equal distance from Raia Church. She has specifically stated that the nature of the sale deed plot is similar to that of the acquired land. However, the fact remains that the said plot of the sale deed is one of the sub-divided and developed plots, being plot No. 13. By the said sale deed, the said plot of an area of 492 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs. 120/- per square metre. The learned Reference Court has made deduction of 40% on account of development, open space, drainage, roads, etc. and by deducting 40%, the Reference Court has arrived at the rate of Rs. 72/- per square metre. It is well settled that the deduction for development may range from 20% to 80%. The acquired land was abutting the road. Deduction of 40% made by the learned Reference Court, in my considered view, is just and reasonable. However, the fact remains that the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the L.A. Act was 17/09/1987, whereas the date of sale deed exhibit AW1/B was 12/11/1986 which means that there was a gap of 10 months. The sale deed plot was sold 10 months prior to the date of notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, it is well settled that the prices of lands go on increasing every year and the Court can take judicial notice of this fact. I am of the view that there was 10% annual increase in the prices of the lands, in the vicinity of the acquired land. Considering that the gap between the date of sale deed and date of Section 4 notification is of 10 months, I am of the view that an increase of 7% should be made in the price of the sale deed plot to arrive at the correct market value of the acquired land. That brings the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 77/- per square metre.
It is seen that AW1 in his evidence has specifically deposed that on account of acquisition, the portion of the land admeasuring 150 square metres which is triangular in shape has been severed and the said severed portion cannot be used for construction purpose. AW2, the Civil Engineer, Mr. Ernesto Moniz, in his deposition as well as in his valuation report (Exhibit AW2/A), has specifically stated that a triangular portion admeasuring 150 square metres has been totally rendered useless because of its size, shape and the area. AW2 also stated that the said portion, which has been severed, has become totally inaccessible. He has stated that since the ownership of the said severed land would still continue with the applicant, the severance charges to the extent of 50% of the market value should be given to the applicant. In this regard, he has produced a plan prepared by him in which he has specifically shown the acquired land and the said severed portion of the property of the applicant which is triangular in shape and which admeasures 150 square metres. It is duly proved that the said portion of 150 square metres has been totally rendered useless. The learned Reference Court has not appreciated this aspect properly. I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to receive, in respect of the said severed plot, 50% of the market value which is fixed for the acquired land, which is Rs. 38.50/-, rounded up to Rs. 39/- per square metre.
The points for determination, therefore are answered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection is partly allowed.
(a) The impugned judgment and award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 72/- per square metre and not granting any compensation for severed land, is quashed and set aside.
(b) The market value of the entire acquired land is fixed at Rs. 77/- per square metre.
(c) The applicant shall also be entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 39/- per square for the severed land admeasuring 150 square metres.
(d) The applicant shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the law with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
(e) The amount already paid, if any, shall be adjusted.