State of Goa and The Land Acquisition Officer vs Smt. Maria Requela Lopes

A.P. Lavande, J.—By this appeal the appellants take exception to the Judgment and the Order dated 22.03.2000 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Margao in Land Case No. 170/1992, partly allowing the reference.

By Notification dated 20/07/1989 issued by the State of Goa u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (the ''Act'' for short). The land admeasuring 690 square metres bearing survey No. 423/1 of village Chinchinim belonging to the respondent was acquired for the public purpose i.e. widening and improvement of NH-17. The Notification was published on 18.08.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 13/- per sq. metre. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted, the appellants sought reference u/s 18 of the Act and claimed Rs. 350/- per sq. metre. In the Land Acquisition Case No. 170/1992 the respondents examined 3 witnesses and the appellant examined one witness.

The respondent primarily relied upon the Sale Deed dated 13.08.1985 (Exh.A.w.3/A), the Valuation Report prepared by an Expert (Exh.A.w.2/A) and the Award dated 29.06.1999 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 166/92, in which, the compensation was increased from Rs. 13/- to Rs. 100/- per sq. metre and also placed reliance upon Sale Deed dated 13.08.1985. The reference Court relied upon the Award and the sale deed dated 13.08.1985 after making certain deductions and additions, arrived at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. metre. Consequently, the reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. metre in respect of the acquired land.

Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the reference Court ought not to have relied upon the award in the Land Acquisition Case No. 166/92 and the Sale Deed dated 13.08.1985. He further submitted that in any case the acquired land was in setback area, as such, no development was possible in the acquired land and, therefore, the enhancement granted is not warranted. He, therefore, submitted that enhancement granted in favour of the respondent is liable to be quashed.

Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Award dated 29.06.1999, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 166/92, was in respect of the land situated just across the road vis-a-vis the acquired land and the evidence on record clearly establishes that the acquired land and land in Land Acquisition Case No. 166/92 were similar and, therefore, the reference Court was fully justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 100/- per sq. metre more particularly having regard to the fact that the said award has been upheld by the High Court.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Government advocate for the appellants and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

The Reference Court while fixing the compensation at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. has relied upon the Award dated 29.06.1999 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 166/92 and the sale deed dated 13.08.1985. The evidence produced before the reference Court clearly establishes that the acquired land is situated in the close proximity of the sale deed land and the nature of the acquired land was similar to that of the sale deed land. This being the position, the approach of the reference Court in placing the reliance upon the sale deed dated 13.08.1985 cannot be halted.

Moreover, Learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 101/2000 has upheld the grant of the compensation of Rs. 100/- to the claimants in Land Acquisition Case No. 166/92 by Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2005. This being the position, in my considered opinion, the reference Court was perfectly justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Shirodkar that since the acquired land was falling in the setback area, the respondent was not entitled to any enhancement more particularly in view of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 101/2000. Therefore no case has been made out for interference by the Appellants with the Judgment of the reference Court partly allowing the reference.

In the result, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Needless to mention, that the respondent is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation deposited by the appellants alongwith the accrued interest, if any.