Post-notification sale instances are relevant in determining the market value of acquired land, and some amount of guesswork is necessary in such cases.

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Acquiring Department challenging the Judgment and Award dated 21/12/2013 passed by the District Judge-I, North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.2/2007.

2. The Land Acquisition Officer had acquired the land of the respondent for improvement and black topping of the road from Palsari diversion to Tamsuli in Village Panchayat Betki-Candola in Priol Consistency bearing Survey No.92(part) and being an orchard land close to the land lying in the village Candola in an area of 1870 sq.mts. pursuant to the Notification dated 28/01/2002 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act, for short). The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the total compensation of Rs.61,002/- for the acquired property by the award dated 15/12/2004 and being aggrieved with the said compensation, the respondent had filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking a reference to the District Court and claiming the compensation of Rs.100/- per sq.mt. The learned Reference Court on an examination of the material before it had fixed the market value of the acquired land on the date of the Section 4(1) Notification at Rs.90/-per sq.mt. with all the statutory benefits including interest in terms of the Act giving rise to the appeal at the instance of the Acquiring Department challenging the said quantum in the respondent's favour.

3. The Acquiring Department challenged the impugned Award on grounds that the reference Court had grossly erred in enhancing the compensation of Rs.3/- per sq.mt. to Rs.90/-per sq. mt. in the absence of any material evidence brought on record by the respondents for granting such enhancement. The learned Reference Court failed to consider that the acquired land was falling in the orchard zone. The learned reference Court had wrongly relied on the Sale Deeds which were the post Notification Sale Deeds and the Sale Deed pertained to a developed plot admeasuring 252 sq. mts. sold @300/- per sq. mt. even though the acquired land was falling in the orchard zone and had no building potential. The learned reference court completely erred in fixing a higher compensation by ignoring the fact that the acquired land was falling in the orchard zone and was an agricultural and undeveloped land. The learned Reference Court failed to appreciate that the respondent had not produced any evidence in relation to the acquired land viz-a-viz the Sale instances besides the post Notification Sale Deeds. The learned Reference Court failed to appreciate that there was no reliable evidence distinguishing the lands under the post Notification Sale Deeds viz-a-viz the land under acquisition. The impugned Judgment and award was against the well settled principles of law and, therefore, was liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the appellants who reiterated her case that the acquired land fell in the orchard zone being an agricultural land and lacking building potential. The reference Court had relied on the sale instance of the developed plot and ignored the fact that it pertained to an area of 252 sq.mts. which was sold @300/-per sq.mt. The learned reference Court had also ignored the fact that no expert witness had been examined by the respondent in support of his case for the enhanced compensation. She relied in Chindha Vithal Sonawane v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [1975 MLJ 468] and submitted that there was no comparability of the sale instance land with the acquired land. She further placed reliance in P. Ram Reddy and others v/s. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others [(1995) 2 SCC 305], Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad and others v. Male Pullamma and others [(1996) 8 SCC 247] and submitted that it was a fit case to quash and set aside the Judgment.

5. Shri D.J. Pangam, learned Advocate for the respondent adverted to the evidence of the respondent and