State of Goa and Another Vs. Sawaivir Sadassiva Rajendra Bassavalinga Raje Wadiyar (Since Deceased) and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1175327
CourtMumbai Goa High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2014
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 105 of 2001
JudgeU.V. BAKRE
AppellantState of Goa and Another
RespondentSawaivir Sadassiva Rajendra Bassavalinga Raje Wadiyar (Since Deceased) and Others
Excerpt:
land acquisition act, 1894 - section 23 – comparative citation: 2014 (5) air(bom) r 332,oral judgment: 1. heard mr. dhargalkar, learned additional government advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and mr. ramani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. this appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30/10/2000 passed by the learned second additional district judge, panaji (reference court, for short) in land acquisition case no.135/1997. 3. the deceased respondent no.1 and respondents no.2(i) to 2(vi) were the applicants and appellants were the respondents in the said l.a.c. no.135/1997. parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status before the reference court. 4. the facts of the case are as follows : vide notification issued under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (l.a. act, for short), published in the official gazette dated 24/11/89, the government had acquired land for construction of a bye-pass road to ponda town between kms. 121/950 to 126/200. this included land situated at curti of ponda taluka and surveyed under survey nos.74/1 and 74/0, totally admeasuring 8500 square metres, in which the applicants were interested. the acquired land consisted of 2 portions, namely paddy portion and coconut portion. the land acquisition officer (l.a.o.) awarded compensation at the rate of rs. 15 per square metre for paddy land admeasuring 6325 square metres and at the rate of rs. 55/- per square metre for coconut portion admeasuring 2175 square metres. it appears that 1/4th compensation was awarded to the original applicant no.1 and 1/4th to the legal representatives of the original applicant no.2 whereas remaining 2/4th was under dispute. 5. not being satisfied with the offer made by the l.a.o., the original applicants had filed an application under section 18 of the l.a. act before the l.a.o. the applicants claimed market value at the rate of rs. 300/- per square metre for the entire acquired land. they alleged that the area of the acquired land under paddy cultivation was not 6325 square metres. according to them, the area of the acquired land under coconut plantation was 2310 square metres and not 2175 square metres. it was their claim that the nature and topography of the acquired land was better than the land in vicinity and that the acquired land was situated close to ponda city and had high potential for construction of building. it was further claimed that at least for the coconut plantation, the rate of rs.300/- per square metre ought to have been fixed as the market value. they also claimed further compensation in respect of the various kind of trees. that reference made by l.a.o. gave rise to the l.a.c. no.135/1997. 6. as per the claim of the applicants, the learned reference court framed the issues. the applicants examined their constituted attorney namely venkatesh keshav prabhu sawkar as aw1, clement coelho as aw2, engineer vikas dessai as aw3 and one pandurang verekar as aw4. the respondents did not examine any witness. 7. upon consideration of the material on record, the learned reference court partly allowed the reference. the reference court held that the acquired land consisted of coconut plantation in an area of 2310 square metres. no enhancement was granted insofar as the paddy portion of the acquired land was concerned. however, insofar as the coconut portion of the acquired land admeasuring 2310 square metres is concerned, the compensation has been enhanced to rs.120/- per square metre. all the statutory benefits have also given to the applicants. 8. the respondents are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award. 9. mr. dhargalkar, learned additional government advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the actual area of coconut garden of the acquired land was 2175 square metres and not 2310 square metres and the learned reference court wrongly enhanced the rate taking into consideration the said area as 2310 square metres, without there being any sufficient evidence on record to establish the same. he urged that compensation ought to have been calculated for an area of 2175 square metres of coconut portion. learned counsel further contended that the lands of sale instances relied upon by the reference court were not comparable with the acquired land, considering the small area of the sale deed plots vis-a-vis the area of the acquired land; type of the land; as also the locality. he further submitted that one of the sale deeds was post notification and about 8 months after the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the l.a. act. he also submitted that both the sale deed plots were fully developed, as compared to undeveloped acquired land. according to him, there was no evidence to prove that the acquired land fell in settlement zone. he, therefore, urged that the impugned award be quashed and set aside and the reference be rejected or the compensation be appropriately reduced. 10. on the other hand, mr. ramani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the applicants had produced adequate evidence to prove that the coconut portion of the acquired land admeasured 2310 square metres. he urged that sale deed plots were in close proximity to the acquired land and there was evidence led by the applicants regarding the similarity of the land of the sale deeds vis-a-vis the acquired land. he also submitted that the sale deed plots were in close proximity regarding the date of acquisition, since the first sale deed at exhibit 18 was about seven months prior to the publication of notification under section 4 of the l.a. act, whereas the second one, which is at exhibit 19, was only about 8 months after the date of section 4 notification. he pointed out that the reference court has not given any enhancement with regard to the trees though the applicants had claimed the same. according to him deduction on account of development can vary from 20% to 80%. insofar as the sale deeds are concerned, learned counsel contended that more than sufficient deduction i.e. of 30 % has been made on the ground that sale deed plots are developed. he, therefore, urged that there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment and award, in the present appeal and, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. 11. i have gone through the entire material on record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 12. the only point that arises for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the reference court is not just and reasonable. 13. aw1, the constituted attorney of the original applicants, deposed that the area of coconut portion acquired was 2310 square metres and not 2175 square metres. no denial of the above statement was put to aw1, in the entire cross-examination. aw2, vikas dessai, the valuer, who inspected the acquired land stated that the acquired land from survey no.74/0 on measurement was found to be having an area of 2310 square metres and not 2175 square metres. he stated that the acquired land falls in settlement zone and had building potential. the reference court has thus rightly observed that the statement of the applicant that the area of the coconut garden acquired is 2310 square metres and not 2175 square metres has not been rebutted and therefore it can safely be gathered that the coconut garden area which has been acquired admeasures 2310 square metres for which the working of compensation will have to be made. therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the learned additional government counsel that the area of coconut garden was only 2175 square metres. 14. a perusal of the judgment of the learned reference court reveals that for arriving at the market value of the coconut portion of the acquired land, reliance was placed on two sale deeds, which are at exhibits 18 and 19. the sale deed at exhibit 18 is dated 05/04/1989. the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the l.a. act was 24/11/1989 which means that this sale deed was only about 7 months prior to the date of publication of section 4 notification. by this sale deed, plot no.4 admeasuring 354 square metres was sold for total price of rs. 56,640/- i.e. at the rate of rs. 160/- per square metre. this sale deed was duly proved by aw2 clement coelho, who is the purchaser of the said plot and the evidence of aw1 and aw2 reveals that the plot of this sale deed was only about 150 metres away from the acquired land and that the same was similar to the acquired land. the acquired land was in settlement zone and had all the infrastructural facilities, as held by the reference court. no doubt, it is true that this was a developed plot and was smaller in area as compared to the coconut portion of the acquired land. however, merely on account of smallness of area of the plot, the said sale instance cannot be discarded, since what was relevant was that the land was otherwise similar in nature and very close to the acquired land. insofar as the development that was carried out in the sale deed plot is concerned, the learned reference court considered 30% deduction towards the development charges which brought down the market value to rs. 112/- per square metre. since there was a gap of about 7 months between the sale deed and the date of publication of section 4 notification, an increase of 5% was made by the reference court, due to annual escalation of land rates and that brought the market value at rs. 117.60/- per square metre. by rounding this up, the value of the acquired land can be held to be rs. 120/- per square metre. i do not see any reason as to why i should disagree with the finding of the learned reference court, insofar as the market value of the coconut portion of the acquired land is concerned. 15. in addition to that, there was another sale deed at exhibit 19, which is dated 18/06/1990. this sale deed plot was also about 150 metres away from the acquired land and similar in nature as compared to the acquired land. by this sale deed, a plot admeasuring 315 square metres was sold for rs.90,000/- i.e. at the rate of rs. 285/- per square metre. this was also a developed plot and because of the same, 30% deduction was made by the learned reference court, towards development charges and an increase of 10% was made since the sale deed was of the year 1990, thereby working out the market value at rs. 179.55/-. this showed the trend of sharp rise in the rates of the lands in the vicinity. 16. considering all the aspects as above and more particularly, sale deed at exhibit 18, i am of the view that the rate of rs.120/- per square metre awarded by the reference court is just and reasonable and cannot be termed as exorbitant. i am of the view that no case is made out by the respondents for reduction of the said compensation. 17. there being no merit in the appeal, the same stands dismissed. no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Oral Judgment:

1. Heard Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30/10/2000 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Panaji (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No.135/1997.

3. The deceased respondent No.1 and respondents No.2(i) to 2(vi) were the applicants and appellants were the respondents in the said L.A.C. No.135/1997. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status before the Reference Court.

4. The facts of the case are as follows :

Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), published in the Official Gazette dated 24/11/89, the Government had acquired land for construction of a Bye-pass road to Ponda Town between Kms. 121/950 to 126/200. This included land situated at Curti of Ponda Taluka and surveyed under Survey Nos.74/1 and 74/0, totally admeasuring 8500 square metres, in which the applicants were interested. The acquired land consisted of 2 portions, namely paddy portion and coconut portion. The Land Acquisition officer (L.A.O.) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 per square metre for paddy land admeasuring 6325 square metres and at the rate of Rs. 55/- per square metre for coconut portion admeasuring 2175 square metres. It appears that 1/4th compensation was awarded to the original applicant No.1 and 1/4th to the legal representatives of the original applicant No.2 whereas remaining 2/4th was under dispute.

5. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., the original applicants had filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act before the L.A.O. The applicants claimed market value at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square metre for the entire acquired land. They alleged that the area of the acquired land under paddy cultivation was not 6325 square metres. According to them, the area of the acquired land under coconut plantation was 2310 square metres and not 2175 square metres. It was their claim that the nature and topography of the acquired land was better than the land in vicinity and that the acquired land was situated close to Ponda city and had high potential for construction of building. It was further claimed that at least for the coconut plantation, the rate of Rs.300/- per square metre ought to have been fixed as the market value. They also claimed further compensation in respect of the various kind of trees. That reference made by L.A.O. gave rise to the L.A.C. No.135/1997.

6. As per the claim of the applicants, the learned Reference Court framed the issues. The applicants examined their constituted attorney namely Venkatesh Keshav Prabhu Sawkar as AW1, Clement Coelho as AW2, Engineer Vikas Dessai as AW3 and one Pandurang Verekar as AW4. The respondents did not examine any witness.

7. Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference. The Reference Court held that the acquired land consisted of coconut plantation in an area of 2310 square metres. No enhancement was granted insofar as the paddy portion of the acquired land was concerned. However, insofar as the coconut portion of the acquired land admeasuring 2310 square metres is concerned, the compensation has been enhanced to Rs.120/- per square metre. All the statutory benefits have also given to the applicants.

8. The respondents are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award.

9. Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the actual area of coconut garden of the acquired land was 2175 square metres and not 2310 square metres and the learned Reference Court wrongly enhanced the rate taking into consideration the said area as 2310 square metres, without there being any sufficient evidence on record to establish the same. He urged that compensation ought to have been calculated for an area of 2175 square metres of coconut portion. Learned Counsel further contended that the lands of sale instances relied upon by the Reference Court were not comparable with the acquired land, considering the small area of the sale deed plots vis-a-vis the area of the acquired land; type of the land; as also the locality. He further submitted that one of the sale deeds was post notification and about 8 months after the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. He also submitted that both the sale deed plots were fully developed, as compared to undeveloped acquired land. According to him, there was no evidence to prove that the acquired land fell in settlement zone. He, therefore, urged that the impugned award be quashed and set aside and the reference be rejected or the compensation be appropriately reduced.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the applicants had produced adequate evidence to prove that the coconut portion of the acquired land admeasured 2310 square metres. He urged that sale deed plots were in close proximity to the acquired land and there was evidence led by the applicants regarding the similarity of the land of the sale deeds vis-a-vis the acquired land. He also submitted that the sale deed plots were in close proximity regarding the date of acquisition, since the first sale deed at Exhibit 18 was about seven months prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, whereas the second one, which is at Exhibit 19, was only about 8 months after the date of Section 4 notification. He pointed out that the Reference Court has not given any enhancement with regard to the trees though the applicants had claimed the same. According to him deduction on account of development can vary from 20% to 80%. Insofar as the sale deeds are concerned, learned Counsel contended that more than sufficient deduction i.e. of 30 % has been made on the ground that sale deed plots are developed. He, therefore, urged that there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment and award, in the present appeal and, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected.

11. I have gone through the entire material on record and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

12. The only point that arises for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is not just and reasonable.

13. AW1, the constituted attorney of the original applicants, deposed that the area of coconut portion acquired was 2310 square metres and not 2175 square metres. No denial of the above statement was put to AW1, in the entire cross-examination. AW2, Vikas Dessai, the valuer, who inspected the acquired land stated that the acquired land from survey No.74/0 on measurement was found to be having an area of 2310 square metres and not 2175 square metres. He stated that the acquired land falls in settlement zone and had building potential. The Reference Court has thus rightly observed that the statement of the applicant that the area of the coconut garden acquired is 2310 square metres and not 2175 square metres has not been rebutted and therefore it can safely be gathered that the coconut garden area which has been acquired admeasures 2310 square metres for which the working of compensation will have to be made. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Additional Government Counsel that the area of coconut garden was only 2175 square metres.

14. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Reference Court reveals that for arriving at the market value of the coconut portion of the acquired land, reliance was placed on two sale deeds, which are at Exhibits 18 and 19. The sale deed at Exhibit 18 is dated 05/04/1989. The date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was 24/11/1989 which means that this sale deed was only about 7 months prior to the date of publication of Section 4 notification. By this sale deed, plot No.4 admeasuring 354 square metres was sold for total price of Rs. 56,640/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 160/- per square metre. This sale deed was duly proved by AW2 Clement Coelho, who is the purchaser of the said plot and the evidence of AW1 and AW2 reveals that the plot of this sale deed was only about 150 metres away from the acquired land and that the same was similar to the acquired land. The acquired land was in settlement zone and had all the infrastructural facilities, as held by the Reference Court. No doubt, it is true that this was a developed plot and was smaller in area as compared to the coconut portion of the acquired land. However, merely on account of smallness of area of the plot, the said sale instance cannot be discarded, since what was relevant was that the land was otherwise similar in nature and very close to the acquired land. Insofar as the development that was carried out in the sale deed plot is concerned, the learned Reference Court considered 30% deduction towards the development charges which brought down the market value to Rs. 112/- per square metre. Since there was a gap of about 7 months between the sale deed and the date of publication of Section 4 notification, an increase of 5% was made by the Reference Court, due to annual escalation of land rates and that brought the market value at Rs. 117.60/- per square metre. By rounding this up, the value of the acquired land can be held to be Rs. 120/- per square metre. I do not see any reason as to why I should disagree with the finding of the learned Reference Court, insofar as the market value of the coconut portion of the acquired land is concerned.

15. In addition to that, there was another sale deed at Exhibit 19, which is dated 18/06/1990. This sale deed plot was also about 150 metres away from the acquired land and similar in nature as compared to the acquired land. By this sale deed, a plot admeasuring 315 square metres was sold for Rs.90,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 285/- per square metre. This was also a developed plot and because of the same, 30% deduction was made by the learned Reference Court, towards development charges and an increase of 10% was made since the sale deed was of the year 1990, thereby working out the market value at Rs. 179.55/-. This showed the trend of sharp rise in the rates of the lands in the vicinity.

16. Considering all the aspects as above and more particularly, sale deed at Exhibit 18, I am of the view that the rate of Rs.120/- per square metre awarded by the Reference Court is just and reasonable and cannot be termed as exorbitant. I am of the view that no case is made out by the respondents for reduction of the said compensation.

17. There being no merit in the appeal, the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.