CHOLU D ROSAR Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 18/12/2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.244/1996.

(2.) Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as "the said Act", dated 13/06/1991, Government acquired an area of 19564 square metres from the property under survey no.110 (part) situated at Ella village of Tiswadi Taluka for the construction of a new BG line between Roha and Mangalore in the village of Ella and Carambolim. By an award under Section 11 of the said Act dated 3/01/1994, the Land Acquisition Officer offered a compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the appellants preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.400/- per square metre for the land acquired. By the judgment and award dated 18/12/2003, the learned Reference Court rejected the reference filed by the appellants.

(3.) Shri P.A. Kholkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the appellants have produced the sale instances in respect of the lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired land which clearly disclose that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court was not justified to come to the conclusion that the Sale Instances produced by the appellants are not comparable. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court erroneously rejected the report of the valuer produced by the appellants. The learned Counsel further submitted that this Court has passed awards in respect of lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired land wherein the compensation has been fixed at a much higher rate than the one offered by the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the acquisition much prior to the acquisition in the present case. The learned Counsel further submitted that merely because part of the land is agricultural land by itself does not disentitle the appellants for seeking enhancement of compensation considering the potentiality of the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired in the present case and the land which is subject matter of the First Appeal No.23/2004 is in respect of the same notification and, as such, the appellants desire to produce the same judgments and awards based on which this Court has disposed the said appeal and remanded the matter to be decided afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellants to lead further evidence. The learned Counsel further submitted that similar orders be passed in the above appeal.