KRISHNANATH BABURAO NAIK Vs. DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is against the Judgment dated 27th September, 2001, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Appellant had sought a reference to the Court since the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq. metre for the acquired land. The Appellant is said to have owned 22,308 sq. metres which was acquired in pursuance of a Notification dated 20th November, 1980. We are satisfied with the offer of Rs.6/- per sq. metre. Hence, this Appeal.

(2.) MR. R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Award of Rs.6/- per sq. metre and the fact that it is upheld by the appellate Court is explicitly illegal and inadequate in view of the fact that in respect of a similar land, situated just 500 metres away the compensation that was awarded was Rs.50/- per sq. metre. The learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the deposition of one Numene Souza who deposed that he owned paddy land. The Land Acquisition Officer had offered compensation for his land at the rate of Rs.35/- per sq. metre. In a reference, the Court had enhanced it to Rs.50/- per square metre. However, the High Court maintained the offer of the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.35/- per sq. metre. Thereafter, the Supreme Court restored the Order of the Reference Court awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.50/-per sq. metre. The size of the land that was acquired was 68.87 sq. metres.

(3.) MR. P. A. Kamat, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents strongly opposed the Appellant on both grounds. Firstly, according to the learned Government Advocate, the land in question is not at all similar and comparable to the land owned by Numene Souza whose matter went up to the Supreme Court. The learned Government Advocate referred to the deposition of R.W.1, S. R. Kurade, who stated that the land was purchased by the Goa Housing Board at the rate of Rs.5.50 per sq.metre for undeveloped land and Rs.9/- per sq. metre for developed land in the year 1978. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, there is no question of comparing the land to the property of Numene Souza which is 500 metres away. We find from the Judgment of the Reference Court, that this aspect has not been considered at all.