ANAJANI SHRIKANT NAIK Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two first appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as these two appeals were ordered to be heard together by the earlier bench. FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS IN F.A.No.283 Of 2002

(2.) By First Appeal No.283/2002, the appellants have taken exception to the judgment and award dated 11th February, 2002 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case no.111/1994. The appellants are the claimants, who applied under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1894). The acquisition relates to land bearing Survey No.418 situated at Marcaim village of Taluka Ponda admeasuring 40,425 square meters. The notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act of 1894 was published on 27th January, 1992. An award was made under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894 on 15th February, 1994. By the said award, market value of the acquired land was offered at the rate of Rs.5/- per square meter. In the application under section 18 of the said Act of 1894, market value at the rate of Rs.75/- per square meter was claimed by the appellants. The appellants also claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of teak wood trees on the acquired land. They claimed compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of 25 cashew trees. On account of 3 Jambhul trees, compensation of Rs.9,000/- was prayed for. Compensation was also claimed on account of Kauchi trees worth about Rs.25,000/-. The learned District Judge by the impugned judgment and award held that the appellants have not discharged the burden of showing that the market value offered by the award under section 11 was inadequate. Hence, the reference was rejected.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the notes of evidence and documents placed on record. He submitted that on the relevant date , the acquired land had potential for non-agricultural use. He submitted that the basic facilities such as water, electricity, road, hospital, panchayat office, veterinary hospital, school etc. were available around the acquired land. He invited attention of the Court to the valuation report of Ramesh Vernekar, Chartered Civil Engineer and approved valuer. He also invited our attention to the evidence of the third appellant one Mr. Lakshman B. Naik and one Ajit Mardolkar. He submitted that the sale deeds dated 27 th March, 1992 (Exh.AW2/A) and 30th November, 1990 (Exh.40) produced and proved by the appellants, were in respect of comparable lands. He submitted that the lands subject matter of the sale deeds were situated in close proximity of the acquired land and the same were comparable in all respects. He submitted that even assuming that the said sale deeds were in respect of developed lands, the market value of the acquired land can be arrived at on the basis of the said sale deeds and appropriate deduction on account of cost of development can be made. He submitted that the sale deed at Exh.40 was dated 30th November, 1990 in respect of the comparable land and the market value reflected from the said document is Rs.45/- per square meter in respect of the land admeasuring 460 square meters. He submitted that as the relevant date in the present case is 27th January, 1992, 15% escalation per year will have to be granted while computing the market value on the basis of the land subject matter of document at Exh.40. He also relied upon the opinion of the expert showing that the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under section 4(1) of the act of 1894 was Rs.60/- per square meter. He submitted that the appellants had discharged their burden by showing that the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and no evidence was adduced by the respondents. He pointed out that the acquired land was notified for the acquisition for public purpose of setting up an industrial estate.