SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SOUTH GOA), KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD., GOA AND ANOTHER Vs. SHANTA PURSHOTTAM NAIK GAOCAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants challenge the judgment and award dated 21.8.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition No. 96/95.

(2.) By notification dated 12.8.1991 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act for short) the Government acquired for Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. large chunks of lands situated at Chaudi, Canacona. The properties bearing survey Nos. 105/11, 100/5, 101 /3 and 101/13 admeasuring 4073 square metres belonging to the respondent Shanta Purshottam Naik Gaocar, the original applicant before the Reference Court. were part of the acquired land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by this award dated 22.12.1993 awarded Rs. 9.00 per square metre in respect of survey No. 105/11, 101/3 and 100/13 which were paddy fields and in respect of survey No. 100/5 which was coconut garden the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 18.00 per square metre. Aggrieved by the said award, the original applicant sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 100.00 per square metre. The Reference Court relying u on the Award dated 15.3.1989 (Exhibit A.W.1 /A) which was in respect of acquisition for the proposed approach road to Talpona Gaijibag bridge awarded Rs. 24/- per square metre in respect of all survey numbers after holding that all the lands belonging to the respondent which were acquired were paddy fields. The reference Court granted increase of 10% every year on compounding basis and fixed the compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 24/- per square metre.

(3.) Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel appearin for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court was not justified in relying upon award dated 1.57.3.1989 (Exhibit A.W.1/A) since the lands involved in the said award were not similar to the acquired lands. Learned Counsel further submitted that the reference Court was not justified in awarding increase of 10% every year and that too on compounding basis taking the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in award dated 15.3.198 (Exhibit A.W.1 /A). The learned Counsel further submitted that this Court in a number of connected appeals has granted increase of 5% every year and therefore the respondent is not entitled to the increase of 10% every year.