The withholding of relevant evidence, such as a sale deed, may lead to an adverse inference. The market value of acquired land can be determined based on relevant sale deeds, with an escalation of value over time. The Court has the authority to determine just and fair compensation, considering the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Deep Shirodkar, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. A.F. Diniz, Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr. Ryan Menezes for the Respondents-Cross Objectors.

2. This Appeal and the Cross Objections are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 12/2/2013 made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.8/2012, enhancing the compensation by determining the market rate at Rs.1000/- per sq. metre, in place of Rs.30/- per sq. metre, determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award dated 11/12/2002.

3. By notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act) dated 20/8/1999, the State proposed to acquire the Respondents’ plot of land admeasuring 391 sq. metres surveyed under No.178/1 (part) of village Sancoale (acquired plot) for a four-lane road from Verna National Highway junction to Mormugao Harbour.

4. Mr. Shirodkar learned Additional Government submitted that in this case, the Respondents suppressed and withheld the best evidence i.e. the sale deed by which the Respondents purchased the suit acquired plot. He submits that an adverse inference had to be drawn against the Respondents and the reference dismissed. He relies on Avelino Rodrigues and anr. Vs. Executive Engineer - First Appeal No.57 of 2014 decided by this Court on 10/2/2022.

5. Mr. Shirodkar, without prejudice, submits that the sale instance dated 20/7/1995, relied upon by the Reference Court, was not comparable, and based on the same, there was no case made out for enhancement. Without further prejudice, he submitted that the Reference Court has misconstrued the sale instance as applicable to the property admeasuring 3984.35 sq. metres when, in fact, the sale instance relates to the property admeasuring 25,608 sq. metres. He submitted that based on the correct construction of the sale instance, the rate reflected therein comes to Rs.295/- per sq. metre and not Rs.1600/- per sq. metre.

6. Based on the aforesaid two contentions, Mr. Shirodkar submitted that the enhancement of the market rate from Rs.30/- to Rs.1600/- per sq. metre, was wholly unjustified and the impugned award warrants interference.

7. Mr. A.F. Diniz learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents-Cross Objectors submits that the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court concerns an area of 3984.35 sq. metres only and consequently reflects the rate of Rs.1600/- per sq. metre. He submitted that if this was the rate in the year 1995, the Reference Court had to make additions towards 10 to 12% escalation each year and then determine the correct market rate of Rs.3000/- per sq. metre as of the date of Section 4 notification.

8. Mr. Diniz submits that the sale deed by which the Respondents purchased the acquired plot was not produced because the same was made almost 6 years before the date of issuance of Section 4 notification. He relied on Ram Avtar etc. Vs. The State of Haryana & ors. - Civil Appeal Nos. 586-591 of 2017 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20/9/2017 for the proposition that sale instances only up to 4-5 years can be taken into consideration for determining the market rate.

9. Mr. Diniz acknowledged that Respondent No.1 restricted the claim to the rate of Rs.1600/- per sq. metre. However, he submitted that the Court has to award just and fair compensation and, therefore, is not powerless to grant compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the landowners. He relied on Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Shri Laxman Seetaram Neulkar & anr. - 2020 (6) All M.R. 221.

10. Based on the aforesaid, Mr. Diniz submitted that First Appeal No.95/2014 is required to be dismissed and the Cross Objections are liable to be allowed by enhancing the market rate from Rs.1000/- per sq. metre to Rs.3000 per sq. metre.

11. Mr. Shirodkar, in response to the Cross Objections, pointed out that not only the Respondents had restricted the claim to Rs.1600/- per sq. metre, but the expert (AW.2) examined by the claimants, al