STATE OF GOA Vs. MARIANINHA VAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Goa and the Executive Engineer, Works Division VI (Roads-South) are the appellants, who are aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 7.8.1999, passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.22/1997 as a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Dy. Collector and the Land Acquisition Officer, Margao at the request of the present respondents in appeal.

(2.) The facts, in nut-shell, are as under :

(3.) The respondents who were the applicants in the reference filed their pleadings and adduced evidence in support of their claim for compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq. metre. They also claimed a sum of Rs.13,900/- towards the coconut trees situated on the suit plot. The learned Judge framed two issues in respect of grant of compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq. metre for 500 sq. metres acquired land and also for compensation for the coconut trees. The respondents examined two witnesses and adduced documentary evidence. The learned trial Judge considered the pleadings and the evidence on record and answered the two issues partly in favour of the respondents. The learned Judge has not granted the claim of the respondents in its entirety, but awarded Rs.71/- per sq. metre as compensation for the suit plot on the grounds set out in the impugned Judgment. According to the appellants, the learned trial Judge was in error in determining the market rate and the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.71/- per sq. metre. According to the appellants, the award of the trial Court is arbitrary and ignores the well settled principles for determining the market rate. The appellants have also questioned the award on the basis of the sale deeds produced by the respondents for enhancement of the amount. According to the appellants, the sale deeds were not comparable with the suit plot. Shri Bharne, the learned Government Advocate has relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Tarlochan Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 1995 2 SCC 424. Shri Bharne further submitted that it was only a strip of land from the total area owned by the respondents, which was acquired for the purpose of a public road and that such a strip would not fetch any higher price to be compared with a sale of the plot, as on a strip of 500 sq. metres, no useful construction can be made. He also pointed out that there was no development potential for the land. In these circumstances, according to the learned Government Advocate, the offer of Rs.7/- per sq. metre given by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation was just and proper. According to Shri Bharne, the grant of Rs.71/- per sq. metres as compensation was extremely high and, therefore, the Award of the learned District Judge should be quashed and set aside. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has strongly supported the award of the trial Court. He has relied on the following Judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his submissions: