SUCCORO FERNANDES Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the expro-priated land owners is against the judgment of the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 17/ 1991 dated 27th August, 2001. The Gov-ernment acquired a portion of land admeasuring 1240 sq. metres, situated at Malbhat, Margao for the purpose of con-struction of a road at Malbhat. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. metre. The expropriated land owners accepted the amount under protest and claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 700/- per sq. metre. In the reference, certain changes occurred in the array of the land owners, which are not strictly relevant for the pur-pose of the decision in this appeal. The learned District Judge enhanced the com-pensation from Rs. 35/- per sq. metre to Rs. 50/- per sq. metre. This was done on the basis of the compensation awarded in the case of the acquisition of land of one Angle under the same notification and acquisition.

(2.) Ms. Razaq, learned Counsel for the ap-pellant submitted that the appellant's land and one Angle's lands were acquired under the same notification and the Reference Court has committed an error by giving the same compensation of Rs. 50/- per sq. metre that was given to Angle. According to the learned Counsel Angle was wrongly given Rs. 50/-for land outside his compound wall, though he was rightly given Rs. 100 for land within his compound wall. The learned Counsel submitted that there is no appreciable dif-ference in the land situated outside the com-pound wall and the land situated within the compound wall and, therefore, the compari-son of the appellant's case with that of Angle is not proper.

(3.) The correctness of the award in An-gle's case is not in question here. What is material is that for the acquisition of identi-cal property under the same notification, An-gle was given compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. metre. That Award cannot be found fault with by side wind in this mat-ter. As a matter of fact, the appellant's land and Angle's lands were acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. The appellant's land is a strip of land ap-proximately 6 X 200 metres. Identical land of Angle was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. metre. That some other land of his may have been awarded a higher rate, is of no consequence. It is set-tled law that only acquisition of similar lands is comparable. In these circumstances, there appears to be no error in the judgment of the learned District Judge.