Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 631
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
U.V. BAKRE, J.
Vaman Anant Prabhu Gaonkar (since Deceased through his legal representatives: & Others – Appellants
Versus
Dy. Collector And Land Acquisition Officer & Another – Respondents
First Appeal No. 72 of 2011
Decided On : 24-02-2015
For the Appellants :Sudesh Usgaonkar, R. Pereira, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Neha Kholkar, Additional Government Advocate.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Market value of acquired land - Determination of. - Where applicants had been given compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 + Rs. 33 namely Rs. 36/- per square metre, and sale deed plot was exactly similar to the acquired land which was very closely to the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, question of making any deduction or in crease did not arise and hence applicants awarded compensation of Rs.45/per square metre for the acquired land in the present case. - The date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act in respect of the acquired land which is subject-matter of the present case is 19.01.1989 whereas the date of sale deed is 11.9.1989. Thus, date wise, this sale deed transaction is the closest to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. It is also closest to the acquired land distance wise. The value of the sale deed plot is approximately Rs. 81/-. There were 17 coconut trees valued at Rs. 13,855/- in the acquired land which was subject-matter of the present case. Dividing the said amount by 420 square metres which is the area of the acquired land, we get a figure of Rs. 33/- per square metre.
The applicants in the present case were paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per square metre for the land. Therefore, the applicants have been paid compensation at the rate of Rs.3/- + Rs. 33/- that is Rs. 36/- per square metre. Since the sale deed plot is exactly similar to the acquired land and further since it was of May, 1996 i.e. very close to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act, the question of making any deduction or increase in the price of sale deed land does not arise. By deducting the compensation of Rs. 36/- per square metre already received by the applicants, the applicants become entitled to excess compensation of Rs. 45/- per square metre (81 - 36 = 45/-) for the acquired land in the present case.
1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Kholkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. This appeal challenges the Judgment and Order dated 06/12/2010 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 246/1992. The appellants were the applicants and the respondents were the respondents in said Land Acquisition Case. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said case.
3. Vide notification bearing No. 22/132/88-RD, dated 24/11/1988, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 19/01/1989, land was acquired for the approaches to the Galgibaga bridge on National Highway 17 (re-alignment). This included land admeasuring 420 square metres from survey no. 4/1 of Village Loliem in which there was a structure and 17 coconut trees. The said structure belonged to one Ramesh Lolienkar and he has been separately paid compensation for the same, by award dated 02/12/1991. Vide the same award, the original applicant has been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per square metre, in respect of the acquired land and compensation of Rs. 13,855/- has been awarded to him, in respect of the coconut trees. Not being satisfied with the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short), the original applicant made an application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act before the L.A.O. which gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No. 246 of 1992.
4. In the application under Section 18 of the L. A., Act, the Original Applicant Shri Vaman Prabhu Gaunkar, stated as follows:
He is the owner in possession of the property bearing survey no. 4/1 of village Loliem. The said property is on the bank of river Galgibaga and is adjoining the main road and is about 100 metres away from Margao–Mangalore Highway i.e. NH-17. The acquired land has commercial and residential structure connected with electricity. The acquired land was near Galgibaga river ferry point and adjoining the river Galgibaga and consequently provided with natural irrigation and fertility and had healthy coconut plantation in it. The market complex of Mashem, primary school, Mashem bus stop, Public Heath office, Nirakar temple and Galgibag Seashore etc. were all within range of two kilometers of the acquired land at the time of acquisition. Canacona Police station, Court building, P.W.D. Office, Municipal building, Cinema house, Hospital, High School, etc. are within a range of 10 kilometers from the acquired land. The acquired land had the market value of at least Rs. 75/- per square metre at the relevant time.
5. Accordingly an issue was framed by the learned Reference Court as per the claim of the applicants. The applicants examined the applicant no.1(f) namely Shri Rajendra Vaman Prabhu Gaonkar as AW1. He produced a sale deed of June, 1987 as PW1/A and valuation report of Engineer Vikas Desai as Exhibit–20. The applicants examined said Engineer Vikas Desai as AW2 and Shri Ramchandra Bhiku Varik, the vendor of sale deed as AW3. The respondents did not examine any witness in defence.
6. By judgment and award dated 28/01/2004, the learned Reference Court rejected the reference. The Reference Court held that there was a house of mundkar in the sale deed plot and hence the same would not depict the correct and free market value of the land. The Reference Court also found that the valuation report of AW2 was not reliable. The Applicants filed First Appeal No. 128 of 2004 before this Court. By judgment dated 03/09/2010, this Court held that the sale deed at Exhibit AW1/A stipulates that the structure which was existing in the sale deed plot was belonging to the purchaser and therefore, the finding of the Reference Court that the price mentioned therein would not reflect the correct market value of the open land as there was structure loca
