AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
By this Appeal, the Appellants challenge the Judgement and Award dated 10/09/2004 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 421 of 1995 by which Reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1984 ("the Act" in short) has been partly allowed.
By Notification issued u/s 4 of the Act dated 7/1/1992 which was published in official Gazette dated 27/02/1992, the Government of Goa acquired several lands in Sarzora Village of Salcete Taluka for construction of the new B.G. Line for Konkan Railway Corporation. An area admeasuring 6875 square metres of Survey No. 196/2 of Sarzora Village belonging to the Respondent was part of the acquired lands.
The Respondent claimed compensation @ Rs.150/- per square metre and also claimed compensation in respect of trees existing in the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer by Award dated 03/08/1994 awarded compensation @ Rs.4/- per square metre for an area admeasuring 6875 square metres which was a Cashew grove and Rs.2 per square metre for the area having the well of 50 square metres. Towards the value of 43 cashew trees, 2 jungle trees and one teakwood tree existing in the acquired land compensation of Rs. 19759.50 was awarded and towards the structures in the acquired land Rs. 63,383.58 was awarded. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the Respondent sought reference claiming compensation @ Rs.150/- per square metre and also claimed Rs.1,34,000/- for well and Rs.1,90,000/- for compound wall. The Respondent also claimed compensation @Rs.1,000/- of each Cashew Tree and Rs.15,000/- for Timber Tree.
In Land Acquisition Case No. 421 of 1995 the Respondent examined himself as A.W. 1 and examined Krishna Prabhudessai (Valuer, as A.W.2). No evidence was led on behalf of the Appellant. The Reference Court framed the following issues :
Whether the applicant proves that the market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was Rs.100/- per square metre?
Whether the applicant proves that the value of cashew tree from the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification was Rs.1000/- per tree?
Whether the applicant proves that the value of timber trees situated in the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification was Rs.15,000/- ?
Whether the applicant proves that the value of well situated in the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification was Rs.1,34,000/- ?
Whether the applicant proves that the value of compound wall situated in the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification was Rs.1,90,000/- ?
What relief? What Order?
Upon appreciation of the evidence led by the Respondent the Reference Court answered issue No.1 partly in favour of the Respondent and the remaining issues were decided against the Respondent. The Reference Court fixed market rate @Rs.40/- per square metre and also granted statutory benefits under the Act.
Mr. Bhobe, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not have relied upon the Award dated 16/12/1992 in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994. In the said case the land was acquired from Talvarde Village whereas in the present case Land acquired is from Sarzora Village. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the acquired land which was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 was in respect of the publication of Notification issued u/s 4 of the Act prior to the issuance of Notification in the present case and as such the Reference Court ought not to have placed reliance on award (Exh.26). The Learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court, without any cogent evidence having been led by the Respondent enhanced the compensation in respect of the acquired land.
Mr. Coutinho, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/ Applicant submitted that though the acquired land in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 was from Talvorde Village and the acquired land in the present case is from Sarzora village, both are adjoining villages and the evidence further discloses that the land which was subject matter of acquisition in land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 was situated at the distance of about 300 metres from the acquired land and the nature of both these properties was the same and as such the Reference Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon Award in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 (Exh. 26) in which the Notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 26/12/1991 i.e. two months prior to the date of the publication of section 4 Notification in the present Case. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the approach of the Reference Court cannot be faulted and therefore no interference is warranted with the impugned Judgement.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
Following point arises for determination in Appeal:
Whether the Market rate of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court @Rs.40/- per square metre is excessive? If, yes, what is the market rate of the acquired land on the date of publication of Section 4 Notification?
Perusal of impugned Judgement discloses that the Respondent/ applicant had relied upon 3 Sale Deeds i.e. 13/08/1995 at Exh. 23 by which a plot of 285 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.282.75 per square metre; Sale Deed dated 19/5/1984 Exh.24 by which a plot of 249 square metres situated at Dandevado, Chinchinim was sold for Rs. 100/- per square metre and Sale Deed dated 27/3/1989 at Exhibit 27, by which plot of 520 square metres at Talvorda was sold at Rs. 50 per square metre.
The Reference Court placed reliance upon the Award of the District Court in Land Acquisition Case no. 242 of 1994 at Exh.26 by which the District judge had fixed the market rate of the acquired land therein @Rs. 40/- per square metre. The Reference Court, placing reliance upon the evidence led by the Respondent held that the land involved in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 was similar to the acquired land and was situated at distance of about 300 metres from the acquired land. The Reference Court held that the acquisition in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 was also for Konkan Railway Corporation and in the said case Notification u/s 4 of the Act,1894 was published 2 months prior to publication of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The Reference Court also considered that in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 the area acquired was 8650 square metres, whereas in the present case area acquired was 6875 square metres. The Reference Court on the basis of plan Exh.28 held that the Talvorda village was towards the northern eastern side of survey no. 196 / 2 and after considering the nature of the land involved in the present case and in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 and after placing reliance upon the Award in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994, fixed the market rate of the acquired land @ 40/- per square metre.
In my considered view, the approach of the Reference Court is in consonance with the settled principles governing the fixation of the market rate of the acquired land in Land Acquisition cases. The evidence led by the Respondent /Applicant clearly establishes that the lands involved in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 and in the present case were almost similar and the distance between the two plots of land was of 300 square metres. The evidence also establishes notification u/s 4 in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 was published about 2 months before the publication of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present case. The areas acquired in both the cases are almost same and for the same purpose. Therefore the Reference Court was justified in placing reliance upon Award in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 which has been admittedly upheld by this Court in Appeal preferred by the present Appellants. No doubt the land in Land Acquisition Case No. 242 of 1994 was situated in Talvorda village whereas the land in the present case was situated in Sarzora village, but the same would not be of much relevance in view of the fact that both the acquired lands are at a distance of about 300 metres and they are similar in nature. Therefore, the market rate fixed by the Reference Court @40/- per square metre cannot be said to be excessive warranting interference in Appeal.
In my considered opinion, no fault can be found with the findings given by the Reference Court while fixing the market rate of the acquired land @40/- per square metre. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned Judgement, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.