STATE OF GOA Vs. SRINIVAS FATTI NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in First Appeal No.115/87 on 12.1. 1990 whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the Award dated 30th June,1987 which was passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.18/85.

(2.) THE respondent herein preferred a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) for enhancement of compensation awarded to him regarding his land and acquired by the appellant for Distributory D2 of S. I. P. in Paroda Village (Part II) in Land Acquisition Case No. SLAO/sip/104/i/710/85-86. THE enhancement of the compensation claimed by the respondent herein was to the extent of Rs. 60/- per sq. m. and further sum of Rs. 34,290/- towards the value of the trees in the plot. THE learned District Judge of Margao being satisfied with the evidence produced before him ordered the enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 10/- per sq. m. and further ordered 30% solatium on the said amount and interest at the rate of 9% during the period of one year from the date of possession of the land was delivered to the appellant herein in terms of section 28 of the Original Act and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year till the actual payment of the whole amount of compensation plus 12% over and above the market value from the date of the Notification under section 4 of the Act upto the date of the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of modified sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Act. THE amount of Rs. 2500/- was also awarded as costs to be paid by the appellant herein to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant herein preferred the appeal before this Court which came to be heard and disposed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is revealed that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation to the land acquired at the rate of Re. 1/- per sq. m. and the same was enhanced by the learned District Judge to Rs. 10/- per sq. m. In order to justify the enhancement of the compensation, the learned District Judge has mainly relied upon the lapses on the part of the appellant in challenging certain statements made by the respondent as well as on the material collected by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of determination of the amount to be offered by his award to the owner of the land. A perusal of the impugned judgment disclosed that the learned Single Judge while confirming the said enhancement granted by the learned District Judge has solely relied upon mere guess work when he did not find any material on record to support the said guess work. In fact, the only piece of material on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance is the sale deed which is of more than three years subsequent to the date of Notification under section 4 of the Act in the instant case. It is already laid down by various judgments of the Apex Court and reiterated in the case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (supra) that the transactions relating to the acquired land of recent dates or in the neighborhood lands that possessed of similar potentiality or fertility or other advantageous features are relevant pieces of evidence. Moreover, it is also further laid down in the said judgment of the Apex Court that in a comparable sale the features are: (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; (2) it should be a bona fide transaction; (3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and (4) it should possess similar advantages. In fact, detailed guidelines in this respect were laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another (supra) wherein it was clearly held that while determining the market value of the land the crucial date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act is the determining factor for the purpose of market value and the comparable instances out of the genuine instances are to be identified on the consideration of proximity of time and proximity of the situation. Considering these decisions and the tests laid down therein, it is difficult to hold that the sale deed relied upon can by any stretch of imagination be held to be proximate to the date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act in the instant case. The sale deed referred to is of the year 1983, whereas the notification of section 4 under the Act was issued on 7.8. 1980. The sale deed being of more than 3 years subsequent to the date of issuance of the notification under section 4, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the said sale deed for the purpose of guess work to justify the rate of enhanced compensation. Besides, the reasonings in support of the said finding given by the learned Single Judge do not find any support from the material on record. There is no evidence on record to establish that consequent to and as a result of the acquisition of land by the Government for some development purpose in the locality, that there has been further development of private land in the said locality. In the absence of any material to arrive at such finding, the learned Single Judge clearly erred in holding that the proximity which is required to be established in respect of the land covered by the sale deed produced in support of the claim of enhancement is not to be taken in absolute terms and on the contrary has to be considered relatively considering the nature and situation of the acquired land. The said finding has been arrived at without any basis and without referring to the material on record in order to justify the enhancement granted by the learned District Judge.