ORAL JUDGMENT :- Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 21-11-1998 of the learned District Judge, Margao, enhancing the compensation payable to the respondents from Rs.33/- to Rs.105/- per sq. mt. as against the claim of respondents for Rs.500/- per sq. mt. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off the appeal.

2. By notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act', for short), published on Gazette dated 7-8-1986, the Government acquired a strip of land of about 10 mts. width, admeasuring 510 sq. mts. of Chalta No. 16 and 24 of P.T. Sheet No. 193 belonging to the respondents for the purpose of construction of new road at Marlem and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.33/- per sq. mt.

3. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents preferred a reference before the District Court and in support of their claim in the reference the respondents relied on an award dated 20-11-1988Exhibit A WIIB by which compensation was granted at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. mt. This award shows that the acquisition was prior to 1985, but does not show the exact date of notification under section 4 of the Act, with reference to which it was made. The respondents also relied on a sale deed dated 23-12-1985Exhibit Aw1/C, by which a plot admeasuring 318 sq. mts. was sold at the rate of Rs.318/- per sq. mt. The respondents relied, on yet another sale deed dated 10-31986-Exhibit AW1/D, by which a plot of land admeasuring 755 sq. mts. was sold at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. mt. and yet another sale deed dated 16-6-1986Exhibit AW1/E, by which a plot admeasuring 418 sq. mts. was sold at the rate of Rs.330/- per sq. mt.

4. The respondents examined Jose Almeidai/AW1 and an expert by name, Engineer Shri Ernesto Moniz/AW2. In support of the award, the respondents examined Caitano Faleiro/AW3, and in respect of the sale deed-Exhibit AW1/D, the respondents had examined Krishna N. Naiki/AW4.

5. The learned trial Court discarded the evidence of the expert Shri Moniz/AW2 relying on a decision of this Court in Sadguru R. Kolmule vs. Deputy Collector of North Goa Division, 1996(1) GLT 8. The learned District Judge noted that the land sold vide Exhibit/Awl/C was situated at a distance of about 500 mts. from the acquired property and the one sold vide Exhibit/AW1/E was at a distance of about 900 mts. from the acquired property but the land sold vide sale deed-Exhibit/AW1/D was at a distance of about 200 mts. from the acquired property and used the same as the guide to assess the compensation payable to the respondents. The learned District Judge noted that the land of the sale deed-Exhibit/AW1/D was a comparable instance as it was proximate both in terms of distance and time, and after taking certain deductions, including 25% towards development, fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.105/- per sq. mt.

6. Admittedly, there was a strip of about 2 to 2.5 mts. of a existing kaccha road to some extent in the strip of land which was acquired but there is no evidence led on behalf of either of the parties to show as to what was the extent of the said kaccha road. There is no dispute that the acquired property was situated at Borda and formed part of larger property of the respondents admeasuring about 25785 sq. mts. and there were residential houses in the said property. It was located at a distance of about 300 mts. from Margao-Curtorim road and at a distance of about 11/2 kms. from the Holy Spirit Church where there were two schools nearby and at a distance of about 2 kms. from Margao Municipal Square. As per the applicant/AW1 who is also a Civil Engineer, the acquired land was levelled land and was bharad type. According to him it was suitable for construction and was at the same level as the road which has been constructed. Water, electricity and telephone facilities were also available. There were also some houses in the said property.

7. Shri Shirodkar, the learned Addl.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document