JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---This appeal arises from the judgment dated 22nd February, 1996 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 78 of 1993 by the Additional District Judge, at Panaji.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are:

The Government vide notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) and published in the Government Gazette dated 7-11-1991, sought to acquire an area of 21090 square metres of the property of the appellant situated at Latambarcem in Bicholim taluka for the construction of Sanguelim Branch Canal from Ch. 4200 metres to 6045 metres of LBMC of Tilari Irrigation Project. Notification under section 6 was issued on 5-3-1992 and published in Government Gazette dated 30-4-1992. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8/- per square metre. In the reference proceedings under section 18 of the said Act, the learned Additional District Judge refused to enhance compensation from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 40/- per square metre as claimed by the appellant and was pleased to dismiss the reference holding that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was fair and reasonable.

SUBMISSION:

3. Learned Counsel Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, appearing for the appellant, submitted that in terms of section 23 of the said Act, the market value can be fixed at which property changes hands from a willing buyer to a willing seller dealing at arms length and in the process of ascertaining the market value, the comparative sale transactions of smaller area and/or small plots can also be taken into account. The learned Counsel based on the evidence on record submitted that the Reference Court could have reduced the price by 33% considering the fact that the area sought to be acquired was large and undeveloped. In his submission this was a perfectly permissible exercise which Reference Court ought to have done in view of the catena of decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court on this point. He further submitted that the land sought to be acquired had all the building potential. According to him, there was no justification on the part of the Reference Court to refuse to grant enhanced compensation as claimed by the appellant. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (K. Vasunera Devi v. Revenue Divnl. Officer)1, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 2481, in support of this submission.

4. Shri V.P. Thali, Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent State submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer rightly determined the amount of compensation. The Reference Court was justified for want of adequate evidence on record in refusing to enhance the compensation and to accept the rate demanded by the appellant. He, therefore, submitted that this appeal is devoid of any merit and needs no interference. He placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (Union of India v. V.M. Salgaonkar and Brothers)2, 1989(1) G.L.T. 251, to contend that the property acquired was large, away from main road and in area which was not developed; whereas sale instances were of small plots which were rightly not taken into account by the reference Court while rejecting reference under the Act.

ISSUE:

5. Considering the rival contentions, the point for determination is as under:---

Whether the appellant is entitled to claim enhanced compensation more than Rs. 8/-, which was the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and affirmed by the Reference Court. If yes, to what extent?

CONSIDERATION

6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on persual of the record, it is seen that the appellant had examined two witnesses, viz. the appellant himself as A.W. 1. Shri Narayan Shitaram Parshekar as A.W. 2 and one Shri Vaman Kalangutkar as A.W. 3 in support of the claim for enhancement, whereas the respondents had examined one Shri M.P. Hudedgaddi, a Technical Assistant working in the Irrigation Department,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document