The court relied on post-Section 4 notification sale instance and evaluated plus and minus factors to determine compensation rates.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants-State and Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(g)-claimants.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.07.2006 made by the reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 74/2003 enhancing to a certain extent the compensation awarded for the acquired lands comprising lands surveyed under No. 59/2 and 59/3 admeasuring 862 sq. mtrs. and surveyed under No. 70/0 and 71/0 admeasuring 1275 sq. mtrs and 58(Part) admeasuring 925 sq. mtrs.

3. The acquisition as aforesaid was proposed vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act) dated 28.03.1995. The acquisition was for the construction of a road in Cuelim, Cansaulim Goa.

4. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) by his award dated 20.07.1999 awarded compensation at a uniform rate approximately at the rate of Rs. 21/- per sq. mtrs. The reference Court initially vide its judgment and award dated 20.07.2006 dismissed the reference. However, in First Appeal No. 28 of 2007, this Court vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2013 set aside the award dated 20.07.2006 and remanded the matter to the Reference Court to decide the reference afresh. Upon remand, the reference Court vide impugned judgment and award dated 16.08.2014 has partly allowed the reference in the following terms:

“(i) Survey No. 59/2 at the rate of Rs. 62/- per sq. mtrs.

(ii) Survey Nos. 70/0 and 71/0 at the rate of Rs. 52/- per sq. mtrs.

(iii) Survey No. 59/3 at the rate of Rs. 16/- per sq. mtrs.

Also allowed amount of Rs. 37,012/- towards the acquisition of a portion of Survey No. 58(Part) of village Cuelim.”

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellants-State has instituted this appeal.

6. Mr. Salkar learned Government Advocate submits that the enhancement is based on no legal evidence. He submitted that the sale deed dated 21.05.1996 at Exhibit 17 relied upon by the reference Court was post Section 4 notification sale deed. He pointed out that the portion of the vendor's property had also been acquired under the same notification and therefore, the possibility of escalation of price cannot be ruled out. He submitted that even otherwise the sale deed at Exhibit 17 was not a comparable instance and in any case, there is no legal evidence about comparability. He submitted that the reference Court has not correctly interpreted the judgments referred to in the impugned award. Even the discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses have not been appropriately evaluated. He submits that deductions are too low and the reference Court in the state of evidence produced ought to have dismissed the reference once again.

7. Mr. Usgaonkar learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(g)-claimants defends the impugned award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He pointed out that in this case the original claimant who has since expired was examined as AW-1 and an expert was examined as AW-2. He submitted that the expert, as against the respondents' claim about the market rate being Rs. 150/- per sq. mtrs scientifically assessed the material before him and determined the rate at Rs. 84/- per sq. mtrs. He submits that the reference Court has made further deductions that were not quite justified. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted with the impugned award and the determination made therein.

8. The rival contentions now fall for determination.

9. The reference Court, in this case, has relied on the sale instance at Exhibit 17 that is no doubt a post Section 4 notification sale instance. However, it must be noted that while notification under Section 4 was issued on 28.03.1995, this sale instance is dated 21.05.1996. There is no issue raised about the genuineness of this transaction.

10. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, 1988 (3) SCC 751 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as long as there is no legal evide