Back
2004 Supreme(Bom) 405
BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT PANAJI, GOA
P.V. HARDAS AND D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
Government of Goa through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat panaji
And
Deputy Collector (Rev.), Collectorate, panaji - Appellant (FA No.8 of 1999)
Versus
M/s. Agrawal Minerals (Goa) Pvt. Ltd.
First Appeal No.8 of 1999 with Cross Objection No.1 of 1999
Decided On : 16th March. 2004
Advocate Appeared:
H.R. Barne Government Advocate for the appellants
Mr. V.B. Nadkarni, Senior-Advocate with Mr. J. Cardoso. Advocate, for the respondent (First Appeal No.8 of 1999)
The court emphasized the need for a fresh assessment of market value in a Section 18 reference, considering factors such as development potential, tenancy, and surrounding area.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Market Value - Section 4, Section 6, Section 18 - The court discussed the market value of the land as per Section 4 notification, the compensation claimed by the owner, and the valuation report. The court also considered the impact of development potential, tenancy, and surrounding area on the market value of the land.
Fact of the Case:
The government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring land for setting up a National Institute for Water-Sports. The owner claimed a higher compensation rate, leading to a reference under Section 18. The court assessed the market value of the land based on evidence and valuation reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit land had potential for construction, considered the impact of development, tenancy, and surrounding area, and determined the market value at Rs. 310 per square metre.
Issues: The issues included proving the market value of the land, entitlement to compensation for non-user of land, correctness of acquisition plan measurements, and entitlement to receive specific amounts deposited by the acquiring authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence, valuation reports, and the impact of development potential, tenancy, and surrounding area on the market value of the land. It also emphasized the need for fresh assessment of market value in a Section 18 reference.
Final Decision: The First Appeal and the Cross Objection were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
Per Hardas, J.-The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and award. dated 10th November. 1997 passed by the District Judge Panaji in land acquisition case No. 39 of 1993 have filed the present appeal. The respondent to this First Appeal has filed his Cross Objection. The appeal and the Cross Objection are therefore being dealt with by this judgment.
2. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal are stated hereunder :-
The Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Official Gazette, dated 14th September, 1990. for acquisition of an area of 27.685 square metres of land belonging to the respondent herein. The land in respect of which the notification under Section 4 was issued comprised of P.T. Sheet No. 176. Chalta Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 situated at Caranzalem in City Survey of Panaji. The acquisition of the said land was for setting up of National Institute for Water - Sports at Caranzalem. After the issuance of the declaration under Section 6 and after completion of the formalities under the Land Acquisition Act the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquisition of land at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square metre. The respondent/owner had claimed the rate of Rs. 1.000/per square metre. On a reference being made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the learned District Judge. Panaji framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the applicant proves that the market value of the land as on the date of notification under Section 4 was Rs. 1.000/- per square metre?
(2) Whether the applicant proves that they are entitled for compensation being non-user of land amounting to Rs. 75,000/for the period from 14.9.1990 to 22.2.1991?
(3) Whether the applicant proves that the measurements as shown in the acquisition plan are not correct and that the acquiring authority has taken possession of an area of 694 square metres than what has been actually acquired?
(4) Whether the applicant proves that they are entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 28.250/- and Rs. 1.05,942/- concerning the property surveyed under No. 9/2 and 9/3 deposited by the acquiring authority as Revenue Deposit?"
3. In respect of the first issue the learned District Judge. Panaji held that the market price of the land excluding survey Nos. 176/8/3. 176/7/1, 176/6/5, 176/8/5, 176/9/2, 176/9/3 and 176/7/4 is fixed at Rs. 310/- per square metre. The market price of the land which is excluded above would be Rs. 310/-. if they are shown not to be tenanted lands and if they are shown to be tenanted lands the respondent/owner would not be entitled to any enhancement. In respect of issue Nos. 2 to 4. the learned District Judge returned a finding in the negative.
4. The respondent/owner examined Devidas Kudchadkar as AW 1. Vas anti Vagle as AW 2 and Subhash Chandra Narayan Shobe as AW 3.
5. AW 1 Devidas Kudchadkar states that he is the holder of Power of Attorney on behalf of the respondent/owner. The Power of Attorney so produced is at Exhibit AW 1/A. According to him the land of the respondent/owner which is hereinafter-referred to as 'the suit land' for the sake of convenience has on one side Panjim Dona Paula Road and on the other river Mandavi. The suit land is at a distance of 4 kilometres from Panaji City by road and is at a distance of 1 to 1 1/2 kilometres from Miramar Circle. The suit land is at road level and is suitable for construction of a luxury hotel; bungalows fiats etc. Thus.a rate of Rs. 1.000/ - per square metre was claimed. In the cross- examination he has admitted that the suit land is an agricultural land. In the survey records some tenants are shown in the suit land. He has admitted that there is a reference under Section 30 pending in the Court at the behest of some tenants in respect of the suit land. He has admitted that the Valuer Shri S.N. Bhobe had taken inspection of the suit land in 1994. He has denied the suggestion that the suit land is not
