RAVINDRA RAGHUVIR GAWAS Vs. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Mapusa, in Land Acquisition Case no. 84/2002 dated 19th August, 2006, whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to 'the said Act 1894'), for enhancement of compensation came to be rejected.

(2.) THE Appellant is an agricultural tenant of a property belonging to the Communidade of Navelim, Bicholim Taluka. By Notification dated 11.10.1993, an area of 4,78,833 square metres, being part of survey no. 177 was sought to be acquired for the Industrial Estate/Industrial Project at Amona and Navelim revenue Village of Bicholim Taluka. After complying with the formalities under the said Act 1894, the Land Acquisition Officer by an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per square metre.

(3.) SHRI Almeida, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has assailed the impugned Judgment and Award and submitted that the Reference Court has completely erred in dismissing the reference filed by the Appellant. He further submitted that the Appellant has produced an Agreement dated 13 th September, 1993, at Exhibit 24, executed by M/s. Sesa Kembla Coke Company Pvt. Ltd., wherein they had expressed their intention to set up an Industrial Project for manufacturing Coke at Amona, Navelim in Bicholim Taluka and, as such, sought an acquisition of the said land for the purpose of obtaining an allotment thereof and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions which the Respondent no.2 would impose. He further submitted that after the said acquisition, the said land was allotted by the Respondent no.2 to the Company. He, therefore, submitted that as per the said Agreement, the total area sought to be acquired was admeasuring 14,82,600 square metres and the provisional estimate of the cost was fixed at Rs.74,13,000/- out of which, a sum of Rs.18,533,260/- was paid by the said Company to the Respondent no.2. He further submitted that as the said land was acquired for the benefit of the Company and the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Use Act, 1991 was not applicable to acquisitions effected under the Land Acquisition Act, the question of refusing enhancement of compensation for the Appellant does not arise at all. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court totally erred in refusing to enhance the compensation and, as such, on the basis of material on record, there was sufficient evidence for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation awarded to the Appellant. He further submitted that the Appellant has also produced a comparable Sale Deed at exhibit 12, dated 20 th July, 1993, wherein the property which was subject matter of the said Sale Deed was in the vicinity of the acquired land and the price was Rs.40/- per square metre, which demonstrate that the value of the acquired land was much higher than the one awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. He, as such, submitted that the Appeal deserves to be allowed and the compensation ought to have been fixed for the land acquired at the minimum rate of Rs.50/- per square metre.