The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for determining the market rate of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the admissibility of post-Section 4 notification sale deeds in the absence of pre-Section 4 notification sale instances.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant-State and Mr. S. N. Joshi for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 08.12.2014 made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.22/2012 enhancing the compensation by determining the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. in place of the rate of 175/- per sq.mtr. determined by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO).

3. By notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act) dated 05.11.2009, the State acquired the respondents' property admeasuring 1620 sq. mtrs. surveyed under No.69/1 (Part) of village Bicholim for the construction of Pilgao Narve distributor of Sanquelim Branch Canal of LBMC of TIP from ch.0.00 km to 4.850 km in Sarvan Bicholim and Pilgao village of Bicholim Taluka.

4. The LAO by his Award dated 30.06.2011 determined the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 175/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court has now enhanced the compensation by determining the market rate at Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. Hence this appeal by the State.

5. Ms. Mordekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate at the outset submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the respondent were post Section 4 notification sale deeds and therefore, the same should not have been looked into by the Reference Court. In any case, and without prejudice she submitted that the Reference Court failed to de-escalate the rate at 10% p.a. She submitted that there are no reasons for determining the market rate at Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. and the award is based on surmises and conjectures. She submitted without prejudice that in this case assuming without admitting that the sale instances could have been looked into, the deductions to the extent of a minimum of 75% were warranted. Based on all this she submitted that the impugned award warrants interference.

6. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that there is no absolute bar for taking into account the post Section 4 notification sale deeds. He relied on Chimanlal Hargovinddas v/s. Special LAO, Poona & Ors. - 1988 (3) SCC 751 and the Judgment and Order dated 04.02.2022 in First Appeals No.77 and 78 of 2015 (The Managing Director, Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation v/s. Shrikant P. Shirodkar).

7. Mr. Joshi submitted that the acquired property was on the border of the limits of the jurisdiction of the Bicholim Municipal Council. He submitted that the acquired land had all the amenities like water supply, electricity supply, access, etc. He submitted that even the sale instances relied upon by the respondent were in respect of the undeveloped and unconverted plots of land. Based on all this evidence he submitted that there was no error whatsoever in the determination made by the Reference Court and therefore this appeal may be dismissed.

8. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

9. On the perusal of the impugned award, though the Reference Court had indeed referred to several decisions, the precise basis for arriving at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. is not clearly discernible. After reference to several principles, the Reference Court has simply observed that keeping in mind all these facts and that there was the potentiality of developing the land though not in the immediate future as well as the fact that the land was of Orchard type, the compensation needs to be enhanced reasonably though not at the rate of enhancement that the applicant claims. After such an omnibus statement the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 175/- to Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. Ms. Mordekar is therefore to a certain extent justified in her criticism.

10. However, having said this, it must be noted that the Reference Court has referred to the evidence on record even though, the evidence may not have been discussed as required und