STATE OF GOA Vs. DEVENDRA RAJARAM SINAI KELEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State has preferred this appeal against the award passed by the Additional District Judge, panaji partly allowing the reference of the claimant under section 18 of the land Acquisition Act.

(2.) The claimant filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement made by the Dy. Collector and sdo Ponda on the application of the applicant. By notification under section 4 of the land Acquisition Act dated 16-8-1991, the claimant's land came to be acquired for the purpose of realignment of Mardol bye-pass on National Highway 4a. The Land acquisition Officer by his award dated 20-12-1994 fixed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 30/- per sq. metre respectively for the areas of 2100 sq. metres from Survey No. 309/5 and 4950 sq. metres from Survey No. 311/6. Being dissatisfied by the said award, the reference came to be filed submitting that the market price of the impugned land was Rs. 250/- per sq. metre. The learned District judge after hearing both the parties finally came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled for partial enhancement in the compensation and fixed the market price at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. metre for Survey no. 309/5 and Rs. 79. 68 per sq. metre for survey No. 311/6.

(3.) I heard the learned Counsel for the state as well as the claimant/respondent. It was urged on behalf of the State that the learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. In fact there was no evidence on record to determine the market price on the basis of similarity of any other sale instance in the vicinity. It was also urged that the learned trial Judge took into account the escalation of the price of the compared land at the rate of 10 p. p. a. which should not have been granted. Further, it was submitted that the market price fixed by the SLA was proper and rule of average should not have been adopted by the lower Court while adjudicating the fair market price of the impugned land. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the method adopted by the trial Judge could not be said to be illegal especially, when the sale instance is of the year 1986, related to the land adjacent to the acquired land which was available for comparison and, therefore, taking into account such evidence cannot be said to be improper. It was further submitted that the lower Court's deduction of one third price towards development charges appears to be correct and has to be accepted in law.