COMMUNIDADE OF CORTALIM Vs. DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal challenges the judgment and Award dated 8th August, 2003 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 135/1997, whereby the reference preferred by the appellants under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the said Acf), came to be dismissed. By notification dated 8th January, 1990, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and published in the Official Gazette dated 22nd March, 1990, the respondents acquired land admeasuring an area of 759062 square metres located at different places on Verna plateau for the expansion of the Verna Industrial Estate (Phase II). One of the properties sought to be acquired by the said notification was an area of 3140 square metres surveyed under No. 158 (part) of Village Cortalim, belonging to the appellants. In the Award passed under section 11 of the said Act, dated 19th April, 1993, the said land belonging to the appellants was classified as first bharad and the compensation awarded to the appellant was at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation, the appellants sought a reference under section 18 of the said Act for enhancement oi compensation and claimed an amount of Rs. 200/- per square metre. The learned District Judge after framing the issues and recording the evidence, dismissed the reference filed by the appellants.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and Award dated 8th August, 2003, the ap-pellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Shri Peter Carvalho, Special Attorney of the appellants argued in person and contended that the learned District Judge has erroneously held that the appellants had failed to establish that they were entitled foi enhancement of compensation. He further contended that the learned Judge had ap-preciated the evidence on the basis that the location of the land acquired belonging to the appellants had not been established when such consideration was not all relevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the land acquired. He further submitted that the witnesses examined by the appel-lants had pointed out that the land acquired was in the vicinity of the developed area which had high potentialities of being used for non-agricultural purposes. He further pointed oul that the appellants had adduced evidence tc substantiate their claim for enhancement o: compensation. The said attorney furthei stated that the appellants had produced sale-deed dated 24th April, 1987, wherein an area of J. 50 square metres was sold at the rate o:Rs. 120/- per square metre in respect of the land surveyed under No. 47/16. He also pointed out that another sale-deed was pro-duced by the appellants wherein the price was fixed at Rs. 176.47 per square metre for a an area of 425 square metres for the prop-erty surveyed under No. 155/4. He further stated that by sale-deed dated 6th Novem-ber, 1989, an area of 175 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs. 225/- per square me-tre. He further pointed out that by another two sale deeds dated 21st September, 1989 and 23rd April, 1991, properties sold in Cortalim admeasuring an area of 34.32 square metres and 325 square metres respec-tively, were sold at the rate of Rs. 275/- per square metre and Rs. 200/- per square me-tre. He further contended that the said sale-deeds are in the same village and could be compared for the purpose of determining the compensation in the present case. He fur-ther submitted that merely because there were some discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses, the evidence adduced by the appellants was erroneously discarded by the Reference Court. He further submitted that the land of the appellants was flat land and could be used for non-agricultural pur-pose and, as such, the Reference Court had erroneously rejected the reference sought by the appellants. With regard to the conten-tion that the land of the appellants was Communidade land as such had no poten-tial value, the said Attorney pointed out that the Code of Communidade only imposes a restriction to transfer the land subject to obtaining the permission from the concerned authorities and there is no bar for transfer-ring the land provided that the conditions as envisaged under the code of Communidade are complied with. He further stated that merely because such restrictions are imposed by the code of Commurudade, it does not im-ply that the land of the appellants had no potentiality for being used for non-agricul-tural purpose. He accordingly stated that the appellants had made out a case for enhance.