LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-2

STATE OF GOA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Decided On October 13, 2006
ANTONIO JOSE HERODOTO, L.F.RODRIGUES Appellant
V/S
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these four appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they pertain to acquisition of land under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act by common notification No. 22/44/85rd dated 25. 4. 1985. The claimant in First Appeal No. 68/2000 filed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was adjudicated by the learned Addl. District Judge and the reference came to be partly allowed. Hence, not satisfied by the award granted by the Addl. District court, the claimant as well as the State have preferred these appeals i. e. First Appeal No. 68/2000 and First Appeal No. 105/99. Similarly, the claimant in First Appeal No. 69/03 filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which was partly allowed and, therefore, both the parties involved, being not satisfied, have filed First Appeal No. 69/2000 and First Appeal No. 103/99.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for both the parties in all the said appeals. Perused the record. It may be noted that in both the references, the learned trial Judge was of the view that the market rate of the acquired land was required to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 45/ per sq. metre, and proceeded to pass the said award along with other statutory benefits, so far as First Appeal No. 68/2000 was concerned. However, in First appeal No. 69/2000, though the trial Judge granted the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/ per sq. metre, rejected the statutory components contemplated under Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that it was not payable under law.

(3.) LET us now take first set of appeals i. e. First Appeal no. 68/2000 and State appeal, First Appeal No. 105/99 for consideration. As noted earlier, by Notification dated 25. 4. 1985, the Government acquired portion of the claimant's property from Survey No. 33/2 of Village pale. The notification was duly published and the award was declared on 13. 5. 1988, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/ per sq. metre by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of an area of 1850 sq. metres. The claimant accepted the same under protest and filed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 150/ per sq. metre as on the date of publication of the Notification. It was also claimed by the claimant that the actual area of the acquired land was 2440 sq. metres and further claimed that there were several trees, of which the value was to the extent of Rs. 30,000/. Further he claimed that a potion of his land was rendered useless and, therefore, severance compensation to the extent of rs. 3,00,000/ also came to be claimed. On the basis of the pleadings and available evidence, the learned trial Judge proceeded to adjudicate the reference and came to the conclusion that it was proved that the land under acquisition was valued at the rate of Rs. 45/ per sq. metre. It was further held that the claimant was not entitled to either value of the trees or the alleged severance of land.