STATE OF GOA Vs. RADHABHAI VOIKUNTH GHODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Goa and the Assistant Defence Estate officer, Panaji has filed the present appeal against the judgment/award of the Reference Court (District Judge, Panaji) dated 27-10-97.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, by virtue of the notification issued under section 4 (1)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 published in the Official Gazette dated 13-12-88 the Government acquired 38325 sq. m. of land in village Ponda, goa for the purpose of 6 TTR (2 STC) at Kurti, Ponda, Goa (additional area)and in that was included a plot of land admeasuring 2872 sq. m. of Survey no. 65 of Kurti, Ponda belonging to the respondent (since deceased and represented by her heirs) and the L. A. O. by his Award dated 23-11-90 awarded to the respondent compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. m. The respondent having sought reference under section 18 of the said Act, the Reference Court was pleased to enhance the compensation at Rs. 147/-per sq. m. based on a pre-notification sale-deed dated 17-10-88. ________

(3.) AT the time of hearing, learned Government Advocate Shri Vahidulla on behalf of the appellant has submitted that there was no similarity between the acquired land and the land of sale-deed dated 13-10-88 and therefore the same could not have been used as a guide to fix the compensation payable to the respondent. Shri Vahidulla has next submitted that there was no evidence led before the learned Reference Court that the acquired land was located in residential zone inasmuch as the learned Reference Court also did not consider that the plot of the sale-deed was a very small plot while the acquired land was a large property. Learned Advocate Shri Vahidulla next submitted that some of the factors which were required to be considered as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (Shaji kuriakose and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others), 2001 (7) S. C. C. 650 : A. I. R 2001 S. C. 3341 : 2001 (4) All. M. R. 874, particularly Factors (4) and (5) were not applicable to the case of the respondent. It is the submission of learned Advocate Shri Vahidulla that in the circumstances, the awarded compensation by the L. A. O. ought to have been maintained.