Advocates:
['ADV GAJENDRA USGAONKAR', 'ADV VISHWADH SARDESSAI AGA', '', 'VISHWADH SARDESSAI']

204-FA 57-14.DOC

Amrut

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

FIRST APPEAL NO.57 OF 2014

1. Mr. Avelino Rodrigues,

son of Alex Santan Rodrigues,

age 52 years, married and his wife.

2. Mrs. Carolina Ana Rodrigues,

W/o Avelino Rodrigues,

Both r/o H.No.164/03,

Brittowaddo, Parra, Bardez Goa.

… Appellants

Versus

Executive Engineer,

Works Division VII,

Goa Tillari Irrigation Development Corp.

Shargal, Pernem Goa.

...Respondent

Mr. Gajendra Usgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Vishwadh Sardessai, Advocate for the respondent.

CORAM: M. S. SONAK, J

DATE :

10

th February 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants, and

Mr. Sardessai learned Additional Government Advocate for the

respondent.

2.

This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and award

dated 04.01.2014 made by the learned Reference Court in Land

Acquisition Case No.42/2009 dismissing the appellants' reference

Page 1 of 14

10^th February 2022

204-FA 57-14.DOC

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the said Act)

seeking enhancement of compensation.

3.

By notification dated 06.12.2006 issued under Section 4 of the

said Act, the State proposed to acquire the appellants' property

admeasuring 19,611 square meters surveyed under No.153/2 of

Torcem Pernem Goa for Tillari Irrigation canal.

4.

The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 29.05.2009

determined the market rate at 40/- per square meter. Dissatisfied

₹

with this rate, the appellants applied for reference under Section 18 of

the said Act claiming compensation at the rate of 1000/- per square

₹

meter for coconut garden area and 400/- for cashew garden area.

₹

5.

The reference Court vide impugned judgment and award dated

04.01.2014 has however dismissed the reference and maintained the

rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, this appeal.

6.

Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that

in this case there were no comparable sale instances available and

therefore, the reference Court was obliged to adopt the capitalization

method which it has failed to adopt. He relied on the Union of

India and another Vs Shanti Devi and others

1, Airports Authority

of India Vs Satyagopal Roy and others

2, Special Land Acquisition

1 (1983) 4 SCC 542

2 (2002) 3 SCC 527

Page 2 of 14

10^th February 2022

204-FA 57-14.DOC

Officer, Davangere Vs P. Veerabhadarappa and others

3 in support

of this submission.

7.

Mr. Usgaonkar then submitted that in this case, the settlement

report prepared under the Land Revenue Code was available for

Pernem Taluka where the acquired property is situated. He submits

that this settlement report was duly tendered in evidence. Based upon

this settlement report, the market rate in so far as the cashew lands are

concerned should have been taken at least 400/- per square meter. He

₹

referred to the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief tendered by the

appellants and in the absence of any significant cross-examination to

submit calculations provided by the appellants ought to have been

accepted. He relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer, M. I. W.,

Jalgaon Vs Chindha Fakira Patil

4, Lal Chand Vs Union of India

and another

5 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this

Court in Writ Petition No.786 of 2011 decided on 15

th December

2011 in the petition instituted by the present appellants.

8.

Mr. Usgaonkar submitted that the reference Court erred in

relying on the sale deed dated 18.03.1998 (Exhibit 16) by which the

appellants purchased the larger property of which the acquired

property is only a part because such sale deed was entered into in the

year 1998 and the Section 4 notification, in this case, was issued in the

3 (1984) 2 SCC 120

4 (2007) 2 BCR 370

5 (2009) 15 SCC 769

Page 3 of 14

10^th February 2022

204-FA 57-14.DOC

year 2006. He submitted that for want of proximity in time the sale

deed c