The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, considering comparability with sale deeds, deductions for development charges, proximity to a railway line, and the status of Communidade land.

F.M. Reis, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 25.01.2008 whereby a reference preferred by the respondent was partly allowed and the market value of the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.386/- per square metre besides statutory benefits.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that by notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as "the said Act") published in the official gazette dated 31.10.2002, the appellants intended to acquire land for the construction and re-alignment of the road at Km 4.00 and Km. 11.40 (Airport) for NH 17B in Pale and Chicalim Village of Mormugao Taluka. Amongst such land, the portions of the property surveyed under No. 82(part) admeasuring 19300 square metres, 21(part) admeasuring 8525 square metres and 22(part) admeasuring 1825 square metres of Village Chicalim were also intended to be acquired. By an award dated 15.11.2005, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.70/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.2000/- per square metre for the land acquired. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award has fixed the compensation for the land surveyed under nos. 82(part) admeasuring 19300 square metres, 21 (part) admesuring 8525 square metres and 22(part) admeasuring 1825 square metres of Village Chicalim at the rate of Rs.386/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. After being duly served, the respondent filed cross objection and inter-alia claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.1300/- per square metre.

4. Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has pointed out that the land which has been acquired is Communidade land and as such the land cannot be used for any other purpose which factor has not been examined by the Reference Court while fixing the compensation. The learned counsel further pointed out that the land which has been acquired is uncultivable having no potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose and as such, the Reference Court was not justified to enhance the compensation on the ground that the land had potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose. The learned counsel further pointed out that sale instance which has been relied upon by the learned Reference Court is not at all comparable to the land acquired and as such the Reference Court was not justified to enhance the compensation. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent has failed to produce any evidence to show the comparability of the land acquired with the sale instance and as such, the question of relying upon the said document would not arise at all. The learned counsel further submits that considering the size of the land in the sale deed at Exhibit 28 and the land acquired, further deductions had to be made on account of development charges and the fact that the land was subject to restrictions under the Code of Communidade. The learned counsel further submits that being Communidade land, such land is not freehold land and as such further deductions has to be given on account of such dissimilarity. The learned counsel further pointed out that the land was useless for development as the railway line was passing close to the land belonging to the respondent which imposes restrictions in carrying out construction activities. The learned counsel as such submits that the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper and as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside.

5. On the ot