STATE OF GOA Vs. CRUZ PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Award of the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji. dated 3.10.1988, in Land Acquisition Case No. 83/85 enhancing the rate of the land acquired from Rs. 20.00 fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 60.00 per sq. metre. The land acquired is a paddy field bearing survey No. 76/13 admeasuring 782 sq.m. situated at Murda belonging to Comunidade of Murda. The respondent is a tenant of the said land. Acquisition of the respondents plot was made for the purpose of widening National Highway No. 17. The Notification under Sec. 4 was published on 16.1.1984.

(2.) Aggrieved by the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer the respondent made a reference to the District Court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming an enhanced rate of Rs. 200.00 per sq. metre, being Rs. 100.00 his share corresponding to 50% of the value of the land in his capacity as a tenant of the paddy field. Before the learned Addl. District Judge the respondent led evidence by examining himself (AW 1) and relying on the testimony of an expert witness (AW 2).

(3.) In his deposition AW 1 the respondent has stated that the land acquired is situated about 300 metres away from St. Cruz/Panaji road and also more or less at the same distance from Panaji/Merces road. He further stated that electricity and water pipeline is available close by at about 100 metres away from the suit plot. The respondent has also produced a certified copy of the Award given by the District Judge in LAC/56/76 in respect of land situated 200 metres away from the acquired plot. The said award refers to acquisition done in the year 1973 and the learned District Judge has awarded for that land the rate of Rs. 30.00 per sq. m. In cross-examination the respondent has admitted that the suit plot was about 1 metre below the road level. However, it was brought on record that a distance of about 300 mts. to 350 mts. away from the suit plot there is a school, a Government Health Centre and a private hospital. AW 2 has also deposed on behalf of the respondent and stated that at his request he had conducted valuation of the land acquired. According to his report the witness who is an approved valuer has fixed the rate of the suit plot at Rs. 150.00 per sq .metre. For that purpose he has relied on two sale deeds in respect of land situated close to the acquired plot. One of them (AW2/B) which is a sale deed dated 30.1.1984 based on an agreement dated 20.9.82 refers to land situated about 100 metres away from the suit plot and the land was sold for the price of Rs. 120.00 per sq. metre. The second one (AW2/C) which is a sale deed dated 3.2.1984 refers to land situated 1 km. away from the suit plot and the sale price was Rs. 265.17 per sq. metre. In cross-examination the witness stated that the valuation report was prepared by him in the year 1987. He admitted that the suit plot was a paddy field. However he said that the suit plot was not inundated with water. He added that in the remaining portion of the respondents property cultivation was not possible as water had stagnated due to the building of the Highway. The witness conceded that his valuation was on the basis of the building potentiality of the land acquired. To a pointed question, he denied that the suit plot was falling in the agricultural zone under the Town Planning and that for this reason no building construction was possible to be done in the suit plot. To another question he stated that for the purpose of constructing a building with ground and one floor, no piling was required to be done and the said construction could be erected after filling the paddy field. Only in case of a building with ground and more than two floors than piling was necessary and the price would be Rs. 60.00 per. sq. metre for plinth area. If a multistoreyed building was to be put up then concrete piling would be required.