IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6297 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 5166 OF 2023)

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS FREGRENANDO ALEX NUNES & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6296 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 14678 OF 2023)

FREGRENANDO ALEX NUNES AND ANR. .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in First Appeal No. 95 of 2014 with Cross Objection No. 3 of 2014 whereunder the appeal filed by the State and the cross objection filed by the land owners (for short ‘claimants’) came to be dismissed and the Reference Court judgment dated Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.09 12.2.2013 whereby the compensation was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per square Reason:

meter by modifying the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 11.2.2002 under which the compensation was fixed at Rs.30/- per square meter has been affirmed.

2. The State by contending that the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court which has been affirmed by High Court has preferred Civil Appeal No.6297 of 2025 and the land owners have filed Civil Appeal No.6296 of 2025 challenging the common judgment of the High Court dated 22.02.2022 referred to hereinabove.

3. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the case papers.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

4. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) came to be issued on 20.08.1999 whereunder the land bearing Survey No. 178/1 situated at Sencoale, Taluka Mormugao admeasuring 391 square meters amongst other lands owned by ‘claimants’ came to be acquired. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 4.12.1999 and thereafter rectified by notifying the total area as 3,64,512 square meters. An award came to be passed under Section 11 on 11.2.2002, whereunder the compensation was determined at Rs.30/- per square meter. Being aggrieved by the same a reference under Section 18 of the Act was sought for by the land owners and the Reference Court by its judgment and award dated 12.02.2013 enhanced the compensation by determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,000/- per square meter. The State, being aggrieved by the enhancement made by the Reference Court, filed a First Appeal No. 95 of 2014 and the land owners filed Cross-Objection No. 3 of 2014 seeking further enhancement of the compensation whereunder the owners sought for determination of the compensation at Rs.3,000/- per square meter. The High Court by a common judgment dated 22.2.2022, as already noticed hereinabove, dismissed both the appeals. Hence, these appeals.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State that the High Court had erred in confirming the compensation determined by the Reference Court on the ground that there was no basis or evidence for arriving at the market value of the property. It is also contended that the High Court had relied upon the sale deed dated 8.2.1993 which deed relates to the acquired land though not produced before the Reference Court since it reflected the price of the acquired land or market value as on date of purchase and by adding 15% to the said value every year the market value as on date of acquisition would be 682.35 per sq. meter and not Rs.1,000/- per sq. meter and as such reference court could not have relied upon sale deed dt. 01.08.1995 Ex.-11 to arrive at the market value of the property at Rs.1,000/- per sq. meter. Hence, he prays for the appeal of the State being allowed and the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer being restored.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the land owners- claimants of the land would contend that reference court had relied upon the sale deed dated 8.2.1993 which relates to the acquired land itself and the said sale deed reflected the val