JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. V.R. Tamba for the Respondent.

2. This Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 4/5/2012, made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.5/2009, enhancing the market rate in respect of the acquired land from Rs. 200/- per sq. metre to Rs.450/- per sq. metre.

3. In this case, vide notification dated 5/9/2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act), the State proposed to acquired the Respondent's property admeasuring 23120 sq. metres surveyed under No.16/0 (part) at Chimbel, Tiswadi, Goa for the public purpose of “Ribandar by- pass”.

4. The Land Acquisition Officer, by her Award dated 16/2/2008, determined the market rate at Rs. 200/- per sq. metre. The Reference Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 4/5/2012 has now enhanced this rate to Rs.450/- per sq. metre, as against the claim of the Respondent of Rs. 1200/- per sq. metre.

5. Ms. P. Kamat submits that there is no evidence to sustain the enhancement. She submits that the Respondent is a Devasthan and there are several restrictions when it comes to the Devasthan dealing with its properties. She relies on The Executive Engineer, Works Division XV (NH), PWD & Anr. vs. Shri Mahals Sausthan, FA No.313/203 decided on 30/9/2011 where this Court, after considering the provisions of the Devasthan Regulation has made a deduction of 10%.

6. Ms. Kamat further submitted that the sale instances relied upon by the Respondents were not comparable. Firstly because the sale instances concerned developed plots, and, secondly because they were small plots, admeasuring 1193 sq. metres and 1091 sq. metres, respectively as against the acquired land which was quite a large and admeasured 23120 sq.metres. She submits that in any case, appropriate deductions have not been made by the Reference Court, having regard to these distinguishing features. She submits that there is no evidence about the building potentialities. She submits that the evidence establishes that the acquired property was only an agricultural property, but there is no evidence about any yield or income from such property. She submits that for all these reasons, the Reference Court ought to have maintained the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. metre and dismissed the reference. She relies on Kausalya Devi Bogra and ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and ors., (1984) 2 SCC 324. P. Ram Reddy & ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and ors., (1995) 2 SCC 305. Shri Froiliano C.R. Machado vs. The Executive Engineer and another, 1996 (2) Goa L.T. 126. Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Gadwal vs. Sreelatha Bhoopal and ors., (1997) 9 SCC 628 and Subh Ram and ors. vs. Haryana State and ors., (2010) 1 SCC 444 in support of her contentions.

7. Mr. V.R. Tamba, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that there is ample evidence on record to sustain the Award made by the learned Reference Court. He submits that Satish Keni (AW.1), who deposed in this matter has, at paragraph 11 of his affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in-chief, deposed to the location and building potentialities of the acquired land in great detail. He pointed out that there was no cross-examination on this aspect and, therefore, the Appellants cannot today raise the issue of building potentialities.

8. Mr. Tamba submits that the decision in Mahalsa Sausthan (supra) must be restricted to the peculiar facts obtained therein. He points out that even in the Devasthan Regulation there is no prohibition whatsoever for the sale of Devasthan lands after obtaining permissions. He, therefore, submits that there is no prohibition for the Devasthan making constructions and leasing out the commercial spaces even without obtaining permissions. Without prejudice, he submits that in this case, the deductions to the extent of 60% have already been made and the same are in fact quite excessive. He, theref