BABASAHEB KRISHNARAO RANE Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants who are the claimants in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") have preferred this Appeal for challenging the judgment and award dated 17th February, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji Goa. THE acquisition relates to the lands surveyed under survey Nos. 752, 756, 740, 762, 764/1, 764/2, 760, 761, 759, 758 and 667 totally admeasuring 64716 square metres. THE Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 9th November, 1995. An award under Section 11 of the said Act was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13th August, 1998. THE Land Acquisition Officer offered the market value at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre. In the reference under Section 18 of the said Act, the Appellants claimed the market value at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre for the acquired land. THEy also prayed for compensation of Rs.30/- per square metre towards severance of their other lands. By the impugned award, the Reference Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Appellants came to the conclusion that the market value at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre was reasonable and proper.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has taken us through the notes of evidence and other material on record. He pointed out that though the total area of the acquired land is more than 64,000 square metres, it consists of portions of the land forming part of the different survey numbers. He pointed out that the nature of every portion of the acquired land with reference to its user is different and without considering the features of every portion of the land, the Reference Court has proceeded to dismiss the reference. He invited our attention to the sale instances produced by the Appellants in the form of sale deeds dated 23rd June, 1986 (Exhibit 19 ), 26th April, 1991(Exhibit 21) and 27th June, 1995 (Exhibit 22). He invited our attention to the finding recorded by the Reference Court on the said sale deeds. He invited our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 31st March, 2008 in First Appeal Nos. 13, 14 & 16 of 2003. He pointed out that the sale instance of the sale deed dated 26th April, 1991(Exhibit 21) which is produced in the present case was accepted by the Division Bench. He submitted that without assigning any cogent reasons the said sale instance has been discarded by the Reference Court. He submitted that even as regards the sale deed dated 27th June, 1995 the learned Reference Court committed an error by making deduction of 20%. He pointed out that there was no reason to hold that the land subject matter of the said sale deed was superior to the acquired land. He invited our attention to the evidence of the first Appellant in which he has stated that the property surveyed under survey Nos. 758 and 667 is a cashew garden which was extensively developed by the Appellants. He pointed out that there is no cross examination made of the said witness on this aspect. He pointed out that the observations made by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment that on the land subject matter of the sale deed at Exhibit 22, there were several fruit bearing trees. He submitted that at least as regards the land surveyed under the aforesaid two survey numbers, the minimum market value of Rs.15/- per square metre was required to be fixed. He submitted that the land subject matter of Exhibit 22 was comparable to the acquired land in all respects and, therefore, the minimum market value ought to have been Rs.15/- per square metre. THE learned Additional Government Advocate accepted the impugned judgment and award.

(3.) LASTLY, a reliance has been placed on the sale deed dated 27th June, 1995 ( Exhibit 22 ). The area of the land subject matter of the said sale deed is 102865 square metres which was sold at the rate of Rs.15/- per square metre. The first Appellant stated in his evidence that the land subject matter of the sale deed was at a distance of about 5 Kms from the acquired land. In fact such a long distance from the acquired land is a factor which ought to have been considered by the Reference Court. In the cross examination, the first Appellant admitted that the lands subject matter at Exhibit 22 are developed for the purpose of agricultural as well as construction. He stated that there were mango trees, jack fruit trees, cashew trees and other fruit bearing trees in the land subject matter of the sale deed. He admitted that "in this sale deed plot, there was agricultural income accrued to the purchaser in the sale deed and moreover, the area was developed into plots for the purpose of construction."