The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Lawrence Caetano Vicente Gomes - Court Judgment

Oral Judgment:

1. Heard Mr. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22/11/2006 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge (2), FTC-II (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2005.

3. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case.

4. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 25/07/2002, land was acquired for construction of Underground Drainage Scheme to Margao Town, North Zone - Additional land in Comba area of Margao. This included land admeasuring 82 square metres from Chalta No. 213 of P.T. Sheet No. 55 of Margao Town in which the applicant was interested. By award dated 28/05/2004, the learned Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 70 per square metre to the acquired land. An amount of Rs. 1088/- was awarded towards the value of compound wall located in the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., the applicant filed an application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act which gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2005.

5. The applicant, in Reference Application, stated that the acquired land was in prime location at Comba-Margao falling in Ward No. 9 of Margao city and that the Government of Goa had notified the minimum land rate in respect of the land situated at the said Ward No. 9 as Rs. 4,000/- per square metre. It was further alleged that the compound wall of the applicant had the length of 35 metres and height of 1 metre and that adequate compensation was not awarded for the same. He also alleged that there was a pig sty structure in the acquired land for which also no compensation was awarded. The applicant claimed market value of Rs. 4,000/- per square metre for the acquired land, the sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the compound wall and further an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the value of pig sty structure.

6. Issues were framed by the Reference Court as per the claim of the applicant. The applicant examined himself as AW1 and produced on record only one sale deed dated 27/08/2001 as Exhibit 15 and closed his case. The respondents did not lead any evidence. However, it appears from the impugned judgment and award that the respondents had placed on record a judgment and award dated 06/03/1999 passed by the learned District Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 37/1993 and an Award dated 18/12/1999 passed by the Lok Adalat in First Appeal No. 26/1999.

7. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court found that the applicant had not produced any evidence at all towards the claim of compensation for the compound wall. It was found there was a house existing in the plot of the sale deed dated 27/08/2001 and the sale price was fixed by taking into account the said house existing in the plot. However, the price of the house was not separately stated in the sale deed. The Reference Court, therefore, held that the sale deed plot was not similar to the acquired land and hence, it was not a comparable transaction. The learned Reference Court, however, found that the judgment and award dated 06/03/1999 of the District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 37/1993, produced by the respondents, pertained to similar land acquired for the same purpose i.e. for Underground Drainage Scheme in Margao town. The Reference Court also found that the acquired land of the present case was closer to the acquired land which was subject matter of said judgment and award dated 06/03/1999. The area of the acquired land, which was subject matter of the said judgment and award dated 06/03/1999 was 230 square metres. Due to similarity of the land in both the cases, the said award dated 06/03/1999 was taken as basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land. Since there was gap of about 13 years, by giving 10 % annual increase on compounding basis to the rate of the acquired land fixed by previous judgment and award dated 06/03/1999, the learned Reference Court arrived at the market rate of Rs. 829/- per square metre as on 25/07/2002 for the acquired land in the present case. Accordingly, the Reference was partly allowed thereby fixing the market rate at the rate of Rs. 829/- per square metre. The applicant was also held to be entitled to all the statutory benefits and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The amount already paid towards the land was ordered to be adjusted.

8. Aggrieved by the above judgment and award, the respondents have filed the present appeal.

9. Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the judgment and award dated 06/03/1999, in L. A. C. No. 37/1999 could not have been relied upon by the Reference Court because, the subject matter of First Appeal No. 26/1999 was also the land acquired under the same notification and was similar and by award dated 18/12/1999 passed by the Lok Adalat in the said First Appeal no. 26/1999, the market value of the said acquired land was fixed at Rs. 96/- per square metre. He submitted that though the said award of the Lok Adalat was produced before the Reference Court, the Reference Court did not consider the same. He submitted that there was no material on record to enhance the compensation from Rs. 70/- per square metre to a very high rate of Rs. 829/- per square metre for the acquired land which was only a narrow strip of land.

10. Per Contra, Mr. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submitted that the property of the applicant was a bigger property, though the land acquired was only a narrow strip of land, from that property. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “State of Goa and Another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others”, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 686 and the Judgment of this Court in the case of “Land Acquisition Officer and another Vs. Shri Mulla Abdul Samad and Others ” reported in [2012 (1) Goa L. R. 704 (Bom)], and submitted that merely because the acquired land was a strip of land acquired for drainage, it could not be said that the same was without any value. He urged that the potential of such strip could be realized by annexing or merging it with land to its rear. He submitted that the award passed by the Lok Adalat in First Appeal No. 26/1999, was not on merits and that it was by way of compromise and, therefore, the market value fixed therein ought not to be considered as true market value. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award should be maintained as it is and no case is made out for interference.

11. I have perused the original record and proceedings. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

12. The point that arises for determination is as to what should be the true market value of the acquired land, as on 25/07/2002.

13. For assisting the Reference Court, in determining the market value of the acquired land, the applicant produced only one sale deed dated 27/08/2001 (Exhibit 15) on record, and no other evidence. No expert valuer was examined. Vide the said sale deed, land admeasuring 306 square metres, stated to be a narrow strip of land, was sold for Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, in his deposition, the applicant (AW1) stated that there was a house existing in the said plot and that the property was purchased along with the house. A perusal of the sale deed reveals that there is no mention of any house existing in the said land. Thus, the said sale deed does not appear to be genuine. It cannot be believed that the said land would be so narrow like the acquired land in the present case which had the width of only two metres. Hence the said sale deed has been rightly discarded by the Reference Court. There was absolutely no other evidence produced by the applicant based on which the Reference Court could have arrived at the market value of the acquired land.

14. The only other material before the Reference Court was the said Judgment and Award of the District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 37/1993 and the Award dated 18/12//1999, passed by the Lok Adalat in First Appeal No. 26/1999, both of which were relied upon by the respondents themselves. In the Land Acquisition Case No. 37/1993, land admeasuring 230 square metres from Chalta No. 54 of P. T. Sheet No. 213 of Comba of Margao City was acquired for the same purpose that is for Underground Drainage Scheme in Margao Town, North Zone, Part V. The L. A. O. had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 52/- per square metre and in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 37/1993, the District Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 240/- per square metre. The notification under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act, in the said case was however, published in the Official Gazette dated 12/01/18989. Thus the said acquisition was about 13 years prior to the present acquisition. In view of the above, the Reference Court gave 10% increase per annum on compounding basis and arrived at the market value of Rs. 829/- per square metre. However, there was no evidence on record to show that the said Judgment and Award dated 18/12/1993, in Land Acquisition Case No. 37/1993 had become final and that the applicant, therein, had already received the compensation at the said enhanced rate. In the circumstances above, the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the said Judgment and Award dated 18/12/1999.

15. The respondents had also produced before the Reference Court, the Award dated 18/12/1999, of the Lok Adalat, in First Appeal No. 26/1999. This Award was final since it was of the Lok Adalat, made by way of settlement between the parties. It is surprising to note that the Reference Court has not even made reference to the said Award of the Lok Adalat. In the First Appeal No. 26/1999, land admeasuring 150 square metres from Chalta No. 87 of P. T. Sheet No. 233 of Margao City was involved and this was also a narrow strip of land, acquired for the same purpose of Underground Drainage Scheme for Margao Town and the Notification under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act was published in the Official Gazette on 12/01/1989. Since the acquired land of the present case as well as of the First appeal No. 26/1999 was narrow strip of land, I need not go into the Judgment of the Apex court in the case of “Gopal Baburao Gaudo” (supra) and of this Court in the case of “Shri Mulla Abdul Samad” (supra). In respect of the acquired land which was subject matter of the First Appeal No. 26/1999, the L.A.O. had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 52/- per square metre. The Reference Court had enhanced the same to Rs. 140/- per square metre. In Lok Adalat, the market value was brought down to Rs. 96/- -per square metre, by way of settlement between the parties. In my view, since there is absolutely no other evidence for determination of the market value, this award of the Lok Adalat, in First Appeal No. 26/1999, which pertains to the land which is similar in nature and from the same place like the acquired land of the present case, should be taken as basis for determination of the market value. The notification under section 4(1) of the L. A. Act , in respect of the acquired land which was subject matter of the First Appeal No. 26/1999 was published in the Official Gazette about 13 years prior to that in the present case. Since the acquired land is situated in the city area, in my view increase of 10% per annum should be made on compounding basis. By giving annual increase of 10 % to the said price of Rs. 96/- per square metre for 13 years, on compounding basis, the market value of the acquired land as on 25/07/2002 comes to Rs. 331/- per square metre. I fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 331/- per square metre.

16. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified accordingly.

17. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

(a) The appeal is partly allowed.

(b) The market value of the acquired land admeasuring 82 square metres from Chalta No. 213 of P.T. Sheet No. 55 is fixed at Rs. 331/- per square metre.

(c) The applicant shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits and costs of Rs. 1,000/- as awarded by the learned Reference Court.

(d) The amount already paid to the applicant shall be adjusted.

18. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.