PANDHARI KUSTA BHAGAT Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No. 157/1995.

(2.) A large tract of land was acquired for the purposes of new broad gauge line for Konkan Railway pursuant to the Notification dated 11.6.1991 that was published on 24.7.1991 in the newspapers; though in the Official Gazette it was published on 27.6.1991. This appeal concerns the acquisition of land admeasuring 2200 sq. metres under Survey No.190/14 of Village Nagorcem-Palolem. Along with the aforesaid land, the other land out of various survey numbers situate at Village Nagorcem-Palolem was acquired pursuant to the notification afore-referred. For the compulsory acquisition of the aforesaid land admeasuring 2200 sq. metres, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.9/- per sq. metre. The appellant aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer sought reference and the matter was referred to the District Judge, South Goa, Margao. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq. metre. Before the Reference Court, the appellant produced a sale deed concerning a plot of land admeasuring 1500 sq. metres dated 13.1.1988. The owner of the said plot was examined by the appellant as AW.1 and the sale deed was exhibited as AW.1/A. The appellant also examined his power of attorney Pradeep Bhagat as AW.2. The Award in Land Acquisition Case No.90/1993 was also produced by the appellant as Exhibit AW.2/D. The respondents examined Espirito Furtado, the Civil Engineer as RW.1. The Reference Court held that the sale deed Exhibit AW.1/A cannot be taken as basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The Award given in Land Acquisition Case No.90/93 was not relied upon as the appeal was pending before this Court. The Reference Court, thus, found that the evidence led by the appellant was not acceptable for enhancement. Consequently, the Reference Court by Judgment and Award dated 31.7.1999 rejected the reference. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents did not dispute that the three Judgments and Awards that are sought to be produced by way of additional evidence relate to the award of compensation in respect of the lands that were acquired under the same notification and similarly situated lands. The learned Counsel for the respondents, thus, did not have any objection to the consideration of the three Judgments and Awards dated 26.4.1999, 8.7.1999 and 30.7.1999 in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 153/99, 147/95 and 139/95 respectively by way of the additional evidence. He did not express any desire to produce any evidence in rebuttal to the additional evidence.