GANASHAM BHIKAJI LAD Vs. LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.83 of 2004 dated 18-7-2005. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of theAct, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) land was acquired for widening of Chopdem-Keri M.D.R., Phase I from Chopdem-Mandrem in Pernem Taluka pursuant to a notification which was published on 1-12-2000. Amongst the land which was acquired, a portion of the property belonging to the appellants surveyed under Nos.30/8 and 31/18 situated in village Agarwada was intended to be acquired for the said purpose admeasuring an area of 700 sq. meters and 375 sq. meters, respectively. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, theOfficer awarded compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. meter.

(2.) BEING dissatisfied with the said amount, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act claiming Rs.400/- per sq. meter for the land acquired. The Reference Court by Judgment and Award dated 18-7-2005 rejected the reference filed by the appellants.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Government Advocate has pointed out that the sale deed plot cannot be said to be comparable sale instance, as the land which was acquired was widened for road and as such could not be used for construction purposes. Learned Government Advocate took me through the evidence on record and pointed out that the sale deed land is a developed plot. Learned Government Advocate has taken me through the evidence on record and pointed out that AW1/Ramesh has admitted that the sale plot was a developed plot. Learned Government Advocate has further submitted that considering the overall evidence on record no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment.