SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SOUTH GOA, KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED, GOA AND ANOTHER Vs. SADASHIV SHANKAR GAONKAR @ SADASHIV DESSAI (D) REPRESENTED BY AKALPITA RAUT DESSAI.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants challenge the judgment and award dated 25.8.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition No. 212/95.

(2.) By Notification dated 24.7.1991 issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act for short) the Government acquired for Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. large chunks of land situated at Nagarcem, Palolem at Ganacona. The property bearing survey No. 195/1 admeasuring 2500 square meters belonging to the respondent Sadashiv Gaonkar, the original applicant before the reference Court, was part of the acquired land. The said land was paddy field. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 9.12.1993 awarded Rs. 9.00 for the acquired land. Aggrieved by the said award, the original applicant sought reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 100.00 per square meter. The reference Court relied upon the Sale Deed dated 19.1.987 ( Exhibit AW1/A) by which one Rosalina Rodrigues had purchased the paddy field admeasuring 1455 square meters for Rs. 43.650.00 i.e. at the rate of Rs. 30.00 per square meter. The reference Court held that the land purchased by said Rosalina Rodrigues which was a paddy field was comparable with the acquired land and therefore fixed the compensation in respect of the acquired land at Rs. 31.50 per square meter by first giving 10% increase every year and thereafter deducting 25% in view of the fact that the land purchased by said Rosalina Rodrigues had advantages in as much as the same was bounded on one side by the National Highway and the other side by Panchayat road, which advantage was not there in respect of the acquired land.

(3.) Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the reference Court ought not to have relied upon the Sale Deed dated 19.1.1987 (Exhibit AW1/A) since the land involved in the said Sale Deed was not comparable to the acquired land. The learned Counsel further submitted that in any event, the reference Court committed an error by first giving increase of 10% per year and thereafter deducting 25%. According to learned Counsel the reference Court ought to have first deducted of 25% in view of the advantages which the land of Rosalina Rodrigues had. The learned Counsel further submitted that the acquired land being paddy field, the reference Court could not have granted increase of 10% every year, more particularly in absence of evidence of any development around the acquired land preceding the acquisition. The learned Counsel further submitted that this Court in a number of appeals has given increase of 5% in respect of paddy fields and therefore increase of 10% per year granted by the reference Court cannot be sustained.