State of Goa vs Shri Vithal Kamat and Smt. Kamla V. Kamat

R.M. Savant, J.—The above First appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 in Land Acquisition Case No. 154/1996 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao. By the said judgment, the market rate of the acquired land is fixed at Rs. 45/- per sq.mtr. and the Reference Court directed the appellants herein to pay solatium and other statutory benefits on the said market price.

The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above appeal are stated thus:

The Government had acquired a portion of land admeasuring 460 sq.mtrs. from village Cuncolim for the purpose of construction of road. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was dated 27.12.1990 was published in the Official Gazette of 07.03.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer had declared the award on 22.12.1993 and the land holder was paid the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/per sq.mtr. The land holders i.e. the claimants accepted the said compensation under protest. Being dissatisfied by the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference, the Collector, accordingly made the reference which was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 154/1996. In the said reference the applicants/claimants claimed that the market rate of the acquired land was Rs. 150/- per sq.mtr. as on the date of the Notification. The applicants further claimed that there were three coconut trees and one cashew tree in the acquired land and that they have not been paid compensation in respect of the said trees. The applicants claimed that they are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per tree.

The Reference Court framed the following two issues:

Whether the applicant proves that the market rate of the acquired land was Rs. 150/per sq.mtr. at the time of the publication of Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act?

Whether the applicant proves that he is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 2500/- per coconut tree?

In support of their case for enhancement, the applicant No. 1 examined himself and also produced the valuation report which was marked as Exh.Aw.1/A, award dated 31.05.1988 at Exh.Aw.1/B and the Sale deed dated 07.03.1991 at Exh.Aw.1/C. It would be significant to note that the Appellants herein did not lead any evidence and therefore, in a way did not contest the claim made by the applicants/claimants.

In support of their case, the applicant No. 1 deposed that the market rate of the acquired land was Rs. 150/- as on the date of the Notification and to buttress the said claim, reliance was placed on the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in Case No. 99/53/LA/86 dated 31.05.1988 which is at Exh.Aw.1/B. The Sale deed dated 07.03.1991 at Exh.Aw.1/C between one Ambo and Fal Dessai was also produced. The applicants had also engaged the services of Engineer Vikas Desai for evaluating the value of the land; and also produced the valuation report at Exh.Aw.1/A which was prepared by the said Engineer. The Reference Court discarded the said sale deed on the ground that it was not proved as the vendor/purchaser was not examined by the applicants. The Reference Court therefore, held that the Sale deed cannot be relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land. In so far as the award dated 31.05.1988 was concerned, wherein the Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 31.05.1984, the Reference Court held on the basis of the evidence before it that since the said land was similar to the land in the instant reference, the said award could be relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land. The Reference Court further held that the said award clearly indicates that the market rate for the land in the vicinity was Rs. 23/- per sq.mtr. as on 31.05.1984. The Reference Court relying upon the said award, and since in the instant case the Notification u/s 4 was published on 07.03.1991, held that the rise in the rate of land at 10% is required to be added to the market value of the land in the award which was Rs. 23/- per sq.mtr. and therefore, the Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs. 45/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court therefore, on the basis of the evidence that was before it, held that the applicants had proved that the market rate of the acquired land was Rs. 45/- per sq.mtr. and not at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq.mtr. as claimed by the applicants. In so far as the claim on account of the trees was concerned, the Reference Court recorded a finding that the applicants have not adduced any evidence to prove that there were trees in the acquired land and therefore, held that the applicants were not entitled to any compensation on account of the trees. The instant First Appeal as mentioned above has been filed against the award of the reference Court.

On behalf of the appellants, learned Government Advocate Mr. Rivonkar fairly conceded that in view of the fact that no contra evidence was led by the appellants, it would not be open for the appellants to challenge the market rate fixed by the Reference Court. However, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Reference Court has not disclosed that as to how the amount of Rs. 45/- has been arrived at. The learned Counsel submits that even if rise in the rate at 10% is taken into consideration, the market rate would come to Rs. 37/per sq. mtr. and not Rs. 45/- per sq.mtr. This figure according to him would be arrived at if 10% i.e. Rs. 2.30 paise is added every year to Rs. 23/- for six years would give a figure of Rs. 37/-. The learned Counsel therefore, submitted that the challenge of the appellants is restricted to the said calculations made by the Reference Court.

On the other hand, Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants/claimants submitted that the Reference Court has rightly fixed the market value at Rs. 45/- per sq.mtr. considering the 10% increase on Rs. 23/- which is the base price fixed by the Reference Court relying on the earlier award dated 31.05.1988. Shri Lawande further submitted that if 10% increase is added then the amount comes to Rs. 44.50 paise which has been rounded of by the Reference Court to Rs. 45/per sq.mtr. In my view, the submission made by Shri Lawande in respect of the said calculation deserves to be accepted as 10% increase would be 10% more and would not mean that the amount of 10% is to be added for every year. If 10% increase is given for every year then the said 10% would be on the amount which stands increased from the previous year and thereby the Reference Court was right in working out the amount to Rs. 45/per sq.mtr., hence no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and decree. No other issue is raised nor available to the appellants.

For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the above First appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.