Back
2005 Supreme(Bom) 1383
BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT PANAJI, GOA
R.M. LODHA. J.
State of Goa & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Joaquim B. Crasto – Respondent
First Appeal No. 32/1999 with Cross-objection No. 2/2001
Decided on: 6th October, 2005
Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Government Advocate for the appellants:Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the respondent.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - First appeal - Against judgment and Award fixing market value of acquired land at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. - Government of Goa acquired land for public purpose - L.A.O. awarded compensation at rate of Rs. 13/- per sq. mtr. - Reference for enhancement of compensation - Reference Court fixed market value at rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. - Claimant also filed cross- objection - Acquired land adjacent to National Highway - Evidence led by parties - Acquired land close to bus stop, Church, Market, School, Bank and Post Office - Evidence of respondent duly supported by instance of sale deed led by him - No evidence to contrary - Market value fixed by Reference Court neither unreasonable nor recessive - It is based on evidence on record - Not suffering from application of any erroneous principle - Appeal as well as cross-objections dismissed. - Keeping the foresaid factors in mind, Court finds that the Reference Court has correctly taken into account the market value reflected in the sale instance exhibit AW 2/B as the basis. That sale instance pertains to a small parcel of land like the acquired land. That land abutted the National Highway as the acquired land. The land that was sold vide sale deed exhibit AW 2/B and the acquired land are in the same village and not very far off. The market value reflected therein has been unloaded to account for the minus factor, particularly that the acquired land was part of setback area and thereby 50% deduction has been made. The increase of 10% per year taking market value of the acquired land in the year 1985 at the rate of Rs. 87/- per sq. metre cannot be said to be unreasonable. It is established from Exh. AW 2/A that prices of the immovable properties increased year- after-year in Goa in eighties. There is no evidence to the contrary. Thus, the market value of Rs. 100/- per sq. metre fixed by the Reference Court is neither unrealistic nor excessive. Having taken into account all the relevant factors. Court is of the view that the market value fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. metre is reasonable and realistic: it is based on the evidence on record and cannot be said to suffer from application of any erroneous prin ciple.
R.M. Lodha, J.-The IInd Additional District Judge. South Goa, at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 157/92 by his Judgment and Award dated 5.1.1999 fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 100- per sq. metre on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved thereby, the present first appeal has been preferred by the State of Goa through c the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) at Quepem and the Executive Engineer. PWD (WDXXV). Gogal Margao.
2. The Government of Goa, issued Notification dated 11.5.1988 that was published in the Official Gazette on 4.8.1988 whereby the land admeasuring 305 sq. mtres from the property surveyed under Survey No. 433/4 of Village Chinchinim, Salecto Taluka along with other land was sought to be acquired for widening and improvement of National Highway No. 17. Survey No 433/4 in all admeasured 875 sq. metres. The Land Acquisition Officer vide his Award dated 11.10.1991 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 13/- per sq. metre. The respondent herein d (claimant) was dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and sought a reference claiming compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. metre. The claimant also claimed that he was entitled to Rs. 20.000/- towards the construction of retention wall and compensation for 12 coconut trees standing on the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per coconut tree.
3. Before the Reference Court, the claimant examined his wife Janet Crasto (AW 1) and Rosa Florina Coutnho (AW 2). She produced two sale deeds (Exhibit AW 2/A and Exhibit AW 2/8).
4. The Reference Court, in the light of the evidence that was produced before it, after hearing the parties, fixed the market value of the acquired land as on 4.8.1988 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq metre. The Reference Court held that the claimant was not entitled to compensation for the coconut trees at the, rate of Rs. 3000/- per coconut tree and, accordingly, disposed of the reference on 5.1.1999.
5. As already indicted above, aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award dated 5.1.1999 the State of Goa and the Executive Engineer have filed this first appeal. The claimant has filed cross-objections to the extent he was denied compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq metre and compensation for the coconut trees at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per coconut tree.
6. I heard Ms. Winnie Coutinho, the learned Government Advocate and Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, the learned Advocate for the respondent.
7. In support of the first appeal, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Reference Court failed to apply the correct principles for determining the market value of the acquired land. According to the learned Government Advocate, the acquired land was one metre above the road level and by keeping that factor in mind, the Reference Court ought to have given an appropriate deduction. The learned Government Advocate would submit that there was no justification for the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. metre.
8. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the market value fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per sq. metre was rather on lower side and there was no justification for the Reference Court in applying deduction of 50% outright from- the price in the sale-deed (Exhibit AW 2/B) for arriving at the market rate on the ground that the acquired land was situated adjacent to the national highway and was within the setback area. The learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the claimant is not desirous of pressing the cross-objections for the enhancement in so far as award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per sq. metre for the acquired land is concerned, it being just and proper, warrants no interference.
9. That the entire area of the claimant's property comprised 875 sq. metres is not in
