Back
2005 Supreme(Bom) 1494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Goa, Daman and Diu, I. D. C. , Panaji
Versus
Shaik Mohidin Shaik Dawood
Decided On : (October 24, 2005) 2006
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
Against the backdrop of the legal position, adverting to the evidence on record, it is seen that the acquired land is a large tract of land; it admeasures 85, 856 sq. metres. The acquired land is quite interior from the main road. Though, there is conflicting evidence about the acquired land having access through a tar road, from the evidence, it is amply clear that the acquired land does not have direct motorable road from the main road. In so far as the civil amenities are concerned, the evidence suggests that the amenities like transport, water, electricity, temple, mosque and church etc. are at a distance of half a kilometre to one kilometre. The Dabolim Railway Station is also about 0.7 kms. In so far as the nine sale deeds which have been produced by the claimants are concerned, these relate to small plots of land of about 225 to 355 sq. metres. Those plots of lands at the time of sale were fully developed and abutting the main road. The plots that have been sold by these sale deeds are at a distance of about 0.8. kms. from the acquired land. Strictly speaking, the sale instances produced by the claimants cannot be said to be comparable to the acquired land but asking the claimants to produce the sale instance of similarly situated large tract of land was asking the impossible. For want of definite evidence regarding sale of similar situated plots, the sale deeds produced by the claimants can be co-related to find out the index of the market value. The broad factors that need to be kept in mind are that the sale deeds relate to developed small plots of land adjacent to the main road; the acquired land on the other hand is interior and one has to travel almost 1/2 km. to 3/4 kms. inside the main road to reach the acquired land. The acquired land is totally undeveloped though it is close to the already existing Sancoale Industrial Estate. The small plots of which the sale deeds were produced were sold for a price between Rs. 100/to Rs. 132/per sq. metre. The Division Bench Judgment of the High Court in the case of State of Goa and another v. Smt. Olga Seco Gomes da Costa, 1998 (1) GLT 324 held that where the sale deed of a developed plot is treated a comparable sale instance, 40% deduction needs to be made to find out the market value of undeveloped land. Then it cannot be overlooked that besides that the acquired land is undeveloped, there is difference in the location as well. As already indicated, the sale deeds relate to the sale of plots of land which abut the main road whereas the acquired plot of land is situated in the area interior at a distance of more than half a kilometre from the main road. This aspect also has to be borne in mind to arrive at the index of market value. Having taken into consideration all these aspects, it would be reasonable and fair to hold the index of the market value of small undeveloped plots of land at the rate of Rs. 50/per sq. metre for the land situated a bit interior to the main road.
R. M. LODHA, J.
( 1 ) FOR the purpose of expansion of Sancoale Industrial Estate, the government of Goa issued a Notification dated 27-5-1987 which was published in the Official gazette on 27-8-1987 under Section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act proposing acquisition of 91,176 sq. metres of land from survey no. 185, village Sancoale. Upon conclusion of the acquisition proceedings, the Land Acquisition officer awarded compensation at the rate of rs. 8/- per sq. metre in respect of plain and bharad land, Rs. 6/- per sq. metre for paddy field and Rs. 5/- per sq. metre for the remaining land.
( 2 ) THE claimants (respondents herein) were concerned with 85,856 sq. metres of the acquired land being owner and in possession of the said land. The remaining 5,300 sq. metres was a tenanted paddy field in occupation of one Victor Rodrigues. For the land admeasuring 85,856 sq. metres, the Land acquisition Officer awarded compensation, as indicated above, at the rate of Rs/8/- per sq. metre. The claimants were not satisfied with the offer and sought reference to the Civil Court by claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. metre.
( 3 ) BEFORE the Reference Court, on behalf of the claimants, their power of attorney abdul Azim Sheikh Mohidin (A. W. I) was examined. The claimants also examined the approved valuer, Shakaram Bende (A. W. 2), shantaram Navelkar (A. W. 3), Philip Dsa (A. W. 4), K. Boje (A. W. 5) and Abdul Sattar (A. W. 9 ). The claimants relied upon nine Sale deeds. These Sale Deeds were dated 2-6-87 (Exhs. AW-1/f and AW-1/g), the Sale Deeds dated 15-6-87 (Exhs. AW-1/j) and AW-1/k), the Sale Deed dated 16-6-87 (Exh. AW-1/l) and the two Sale Deeds dated 21-8-87 (Exhs. AW-1/m) and AW-1/n ). The claimants also produced Valuation Report (Exh. AW-2/b ).
( 4 ) IN rebuttal, H. V. Manjrekar (R. W. 1) was examined by the present appellant.
( 5 ) THE IInd Additional District judge, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court) determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. metre and granted statutory benefits to the claimants vide judgment and Award dated 31-10-2001. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Acquiring Body has preferred the First appeal. The claimants have filed Cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land.
( 6 ) WE heard Mr. M. S. Sonak, the learned Counsel for the Acquiring Body and mr. V. B. Nadkarni, the learned Senior Counsel for the claimants.
( 7 ) THE question that falls for determination before us is whether the market value of the acquired land fixed by the reference Court at the rate of Rs. 13/- per sq. metre needs modification (southward or northward ).
( 8 ) ON behalf of the Acquiring Body, mr. M. S. Sonak, the learned Counsel argued that the market rate fixed at Rs. 35/- per sq. metre is quite high. He would submit that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants do not provide the basis to find out the market value of the acquired land on the date of publication of Notification under Section 4 (1 ). According to him, none of the Sale Deeds is comparable because the sale instances pertain to developed small plots of land while the acquired land is a large tract of undeveloped land.
( 9 ) ON the other hand, the learned senior Counsel for the claimants urged that on proper co-relation the sale instances do provide the index of the market value of the acquired land and keeping that in mind that those lands were sold by a consideration of Rs. 100/- per sq. metre to Rs. 130/- per sq. metre, the market value of the acquired land ought to have been fixed at higher rate. He would contend that the deductions made, both for largeness of area as well as the development is not permissible.
( 10 ) IN Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 SC 1652, the Supreme court highlighted the factors that need to be borne in mind for arriving at the market value of land. In paragraph 4 of the report,
