SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. EDGAR SILVEIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellants challenge the Award dated 6.9.2002, passed by the Second Addl. District Judge, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.211/1996. By Notification dated 23.9.91, an area of 1,58,781 sq. metres was acquired for the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. An area of 3575 sq. metres of Survey No.168/2 of Village Malar, Tiswadi Taluka, belonging to the respondent was also acquired by the said Notification. On 7.3.1994, the Land Acquisition Officer declared the Award and fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.16/- per sq. metre. Dis- satisfied with the Award, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as � the Act'), claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. metre. In the reference Court, the respondent examined himself as AW.1 and one Loyala Menezes as AW.2 and produced some document s. The respondent relied upon two sale deeds and also produced notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 12 in respect of another acquisition by the Government for const ruction of a road. The appellant s relied on Sale Deed dated 16.12.1980 of land bearing Survey No.4/4 of Village Malar, by which one Janardhan Thali had purchased land admeasuring over 10000 sq. metres at the rate of Rs.3.83 per sq. metre. The appellants herein examined Vinay V. Naik (RW.1), and Manguesh S. Deshpande, (RW.2).

(2.) THE reference Court relied upon Sale Deed dated 5.11.1985 and held that there was no evidence regarding the trend of increase in prices of land every year by 10% on an island like Malar and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre.

(3.) MR. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that no fault could be found with the findings given by the reference Court in fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre. According to Mr. Diniz, the reference Court was fully justified in placing reliance on the sale deed dated 5.11.1985, since the acquired land is comparable to the land in the said sale deed inasmuch as both the lands are of the same nature i.e. orchard/garden land. The learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the acquired land is situated within a radius of 1 Km. from the acquired land. According to the learned Counsel, since the acquired land and the land in the sale deed are of similar nature and situated in the same village, the reference Court was fully justified in placing reliance on the said sale deed to fix the market rate of the acquired land. In so far as the notice received from the Land Acquisition Officer, produced by the respondent is concerned, the learned Counsel submitted that the said notice at the most suggests that Rs.43/- per sq. metres was the rate offered by the Land Acquisition Officer in the said acquisition and the same cannot be taken as conclusive, since the same only amounts to an offer and not the compensation which is accepted by the party, as the party is entitled to seek reference if dis-satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment dated 28th September, 2003 in First Appeal No.20/2003 (Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. vs. Mariano Caetano Clarimundo F.J. De Piedade Meneze) has awarded Rs.81/- per sq. metre in respect of the land bearing Survey No.194 which was situated in the same Village and was acquired by the same notification. According to the learned Counsel, since the land acquired which was the subject- matter in First Appeal No.20/2003 and the acquired land in the present case are similar in nature and are acquired under the same Notification, the respondent is also entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre. In any event, the learned Counsel submitted that the respondent is entitled to minimum compensation of Rs.81/- per sq. metre in the event this Court holds that the land which was subject- matter in First Appeal No.20/2003 is similar in nature.