State of Goa vs Dr. Proto Fernandes (since deceased represented by legal representative Dr. Fernando Fernandes)

A.P. Lavande, J.—Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since the parties and the issues involved in the appeals are the same.

Vide Notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ("The Act" for short), which was published in the Official Gazette dated 14.6.1984, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for construction of road from Sorim Vasawaddo to Wadi Vaswaddo in Benaulim village. An area admeasuring 40 sq.metres bearing survey No. 72/3 and an area admeasuring 220 sq.metres bearing survey No. 74/3 belonging to the respondent were part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed Rs. 150/- per sq.metre in respect of survey No. 72/3 and Rs. 108/- per sq.metre in respect of survey No. 74/3. By Award dated 1/3/1998, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/-per sq.metre in respect of both the lands of the respondent. Aggrieved by inadequacy of the compensation the respondent sought reference u/s 18 of the Act claiming higher compensation. In Land Acquisition Case No. 217 of 1993 pertaining to survey No. 72/3 and in Land Acquisition Case No. 218 of 1993 pertaining to survey No. 74/3, the respondent claimant examined Dr. Fernando Fernandes, AW-1. He placed reliance upon the Sale Deed dated 26.7.1982 by which an area of 42 sq.metres bearing survey No. 74/3 was sold at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq.metre . The Reference Court placed reliance upon the said sale deed and held that the respondent was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq.metre. The Reference Court did not grant any yearly increase on the ground that the claimant did not lead any evidence to that effect. Aggrieved by the grant of higher compensation, the appellants have filed the above two appeals.

Mr. Vahidulla, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the learned Reference Court has erred in placing reliance on sale deed dated 26.7.1982, which was in respect of a very small plot and, as such, it could not form the basis for fixing the compensation of the acquired lands. He, therefore, submitted that compensation granted is on much higher side and therefore the appeals deserve to be allowed.

Mr. Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in both the appeals submitted that the compensation has been granted on the basis of the sale deed of part of land bearing survey No. 74/3 which was executed about two years prior to issuance of Section 4 notification and, as such, the impugned Judgments and orders cannot be faulted. Mr. Menezes further submitted that actually the Reference Court ought to have granted yearly increase since the notification u/s 4 of The Act was published almost two years after the execution of sale deed dated 26.7.1982.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In view of the arguments advanced and the findings given by the Reference Court the following point arises for determination:

1) Whether the compensation granted to the respondent in respect of the acquired lands is excessive and, if yes, to what compensation the respondent is entitled to?.

As stated above, the Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 26/7/1982, by which a small plot admeasuring 42 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq.metre. It is well settled that a bonafide transaction of sale in respect of the very same property entered into prior to issuance of Section 4 notification affords the best evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land. In the present case, the sale transaction dated 26.7.1982 has not been proved to be not a bonafide transaction and, therefore, the learned Reference Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the said sale deed. Moreover, the plot bearing survey No. 72/3 and plot No. 74/3 are contiguous plots and, as such, the compensation fixed at the rate of Rs. 70/- in respect of both the plots cannot be faulted. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the Reference Court was perfectly justified in enhancing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq.metre in respect of the acquired lands.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in both the appeals preferred by the Appellants. Hence, the appeals are dismissed. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.