Advocates:
['SHRI SUDESH USGAONKAR', 'SUSAN LINHARES', 'AGA', 'FOR RES']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

FIRST APPEAL NO. 180 0F 2005

Mr. Gopalkrishna Pundalik

Prabhu Gaonkar, aged 47 years,

occupation, residing at B-9,

Ayodhya Apartments, Ambaji,

Fatorda, Goa. ... Appellant

versus

The Executive Engineer,

Works Division XXV(NH),

PWD, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. ... Respondent

Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant.

Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the

Respondent.

CORAM : F. M. REIS, J.

DATE : 21ST JANUARY, 2011.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated

7-3-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa,

Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No.217 of 1994.

2

2.

By notification issued under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) dated

15-10-1990 published in Official Gazette on 8-11-1990, land at Maxem,

Canacona Taluka was acquired for the construction of Maxem bridge and

its approaches on the National Highway. Amongst the lands which were

acquired, an area of 2153.75 sq. meters from the property surveyed

under No.357/2 and 595 sq. meters from the property surveyed under

No.356/5 were intended to be acquired which were belonging to the

appellant. By an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated

15-6-1993, under Section 11 of the said Act, a sum of Rs.30/- per sq.

meter was offered for both the said lands. Being dissatisfied with the said

amount, the appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said

Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.200/- per

sq. meter for the land acquired.

3.

By Judgment and Award dated 7-3-2005, the Reference

Court rejected the reference filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved by

the said Judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3

4.

Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the

appellant has assailed the impugned Judgment and has submitted that the

Reference Court has misdirected itself while refusing the reference of the

appellant. The learned Counsel further submitted that in support of the

claim for enhancement of compensation, the appellant has produced two

sale transactions, one which is dated 5-6-1987 at Exh.AW1/A, and the

other sale deed dated 7-3-1991 which is at Exh.AW1/B which have not

at all been appreciated by the Reference Court. He further pointed out

that by the said sale deed at Exh.AW1/A, a portion of the property

admeasuring 335 sq. meters from survey No.111/1 was sold at Rs.89/-

per sq. meter which was a mixed garden and was at a distance of about

20 to 25 meters from the acquired land. The learned Counsel further

submitted that by the sale deed at Exh.AW1/B a plot of 85 sq. meters

was sold at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. meters and it was a part of the

same property surveyed under No.111/1 at Loliem. He further pointed

out that the sale deed relied upon by the respondent at Exh.30 was not

comparable to the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted

that though the sale deed at Exh.30 is in respect of a transaction wherein

the appellant was a party nevertheless the same was sold on account of

special circumstances and a substantial amount was accordingly

4

awarded. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court

has totally misdirected in not appreciating the evidence on record in

accordance with the well settled principles of law, and as such came to

an erroneous conclusion that the appellant failed to establish that the

price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Learned

Counsel further submitted that there is no reason not to accept the said

sale instance produced by the appellant at Exh.AW1/B for the purpose of

determining the market value of the acquired land, and as such submitted

that the impu