Back
2011 Supreme(Bom) 1148
2012(1) ALL MR 392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (PANAJI BENCH)
A. P. LAVANDE, J.
Chandrakant G. Govekar & Ors.
Vs.
The Deputy Collector (Rev) Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.
First Appeal No. 134 of 2002
Decided On : 23rd September, 2011.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
Insofar as the sale deed at exhibit 14 is concerned, the Reference Court was justified in not placing reliance inasmuch as the same was executed after a period of almost 2 years from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Reference Court was also justified in not placing reliance upon the report of the expert AW 2 Mahadev Naik who had visited the property and prepared the report almost 10 years after publication of Section 4 notification. Insofar as the sale deeds dated 9.11.1990 upon which reliance was placed by the appellants is concerned, in my considered opinion, the Reference Court was not justified in not considering the same on the ground that sale deeds were in respect of the developed plots. The evidence discloses that the acquired land was bharad levelled land, abutting Sanquelim Bicholim road and situated at a distance of 25 metres from the plots in the sale deed at exhibits 12 and 13. Therefore, the approach of the Reference Court in not placing reliance upon exhibits 12 and 13 cannot be sustained.
Mr. G. NAGVEKAR, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mrs. SUSAN LINHARES, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.
2. In this appeal appellant nos. 1, 2(a) and 3 have expired during the pendency of the appeal and their legal representatives are not brought on record. Mr. Nagvekar submits that appeal in so far as appellant nos. 4 and 5 survives and their respective shares are 1/4th each in the acquired land. This position has not been seriously contested by Mrs. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Mrs. Linhares states that respondent nos. 4 and 5 were paid 1/4th share each of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In view of this position, the appeal survives in so far as appellant nos. 4 and 5 are concerned and stands abated in so far as other appellants are concerned.
3. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the Judgment and Award dated 10.12.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 53/1995 rejecting the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( 'the Act" for short).
4. Vide notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act dated 13.3.1990 which was published in the official gazette dated 23.8.1990, the Government of Goa acquired an area admeasuring 4229 square metres bearing survey no. 119/part situated at Bicholim belonging to the appellants for public purpose. The appellants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per square metre. By award dated 27.7.1993, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square metre.
5. Being aggrieved by inadequacy of the compensation granted, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square metre.
6. In Land Acquisition Case no. 53/1995 before the District Judge, Panaji, the appellants examined 4 witnesses namely AW1 Chandrakant Govekar, AW2 Mahadev Naik, Civil Engineer, AW3 Vishnu Walwaikar and AW4 Anil Kadkade. AW1 Chandrakant Govekar relied upon the sale deed dated 29.11.1990 - exhibit 12 in respect of survey no. 43/4 by which an area of 275 square metres was sold at the rate ofRs.150/- per square metre; another sale deed dated 29.11.1990 exhibit 13 by which an area of 265 square metres of survey no. 43/4 was sold at Rs. 140/- per square metre. Sale deed dated 12.8.1992, exhibit 14 by which one Cuncolienkar sold a plot of300 square metres at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre to one Mr. Khan. AW2 Mahadev Naik produced report dated 15.3.1990 which is at exhibit 16. AW3 Vishnu Walwaikar was vendor of the plots in exhibits 12 and 13 and AW4 Anil Kadkade was purchaser of the plot in exhibit 14. Respondents herein did not lead any evidence.
7. The Reference Court held that none of the sale deeds produced by the appellants was comparable to the acquired land and that no reliance could be placed upon the report of the valuer who had visited the property after a period of almost 9 years, after placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer(7) Bombay and Bombay Suburban District Municipal Corporation Vs. Vishanji Virli Mepani and another, reported in AIR 1996 Bombay 366: [1996(3) ALL MR 233).
8. Mr. Nagvekar, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court has erred in not placing reliance upon the sale deeds dated 29.11.1990, exhibits 12 and 13 which were situated at a distance of about 25 metres from the acquired land. Mr. Nagvekar, further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the sale deeds dated 29.11.1990, exhibits 12 and 13 and fixed the market rate of the acquired land after making appropriate deductions, considering the largeness of the acquired land, development costs and also considering the fact that the sale deeds were executed after publication of section 4 notification. According to the learned coun
