STATE OF GOA Vs. FRANK MORAES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal and Cross Objection No.5 of 1993 relate to Land Acquisition. The relevant Notification tinder Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 26th February, 1988 was published on 24th March, 1988. The lands sought to be acquired under the notification comprising survey No.394 measuring 279 Sq. metres, No. 432 measuring 5225 Sq. metres, No. 435 measuring 8547 Sq. metres in Cuncolim, Salcete Taluka. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a compensation uniformally to the entire extent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per Sq. metre. Aggrieved by the said offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act by the impugned Award in the Land Acquisition Case No. 160/90 on the file of the District & Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao dated 5th November, 1992, the Lower Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per Sq. metre for the land comprised in Survey No. 394 and for the remaining extent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per Sq. metre. It is this award that is under challenge in this Appeal. The Cross Objection filed by the claimant prays for further enhancement of the compensation given by the Lower Court and also for interest for the enhanced compensation. We have heard Counsel for the Appellant, Additional Government Advocate Shri H.R. Bharne and Shri A.F. Diniz appearing for the claimant Respondent. Shri Bharne has argued that there are absolutely no materials for the Court below to enhance the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Reliance by the Court below on a Sale Deed exhibited as Exhibit 10 for enhancing the compensation is illegal. He submits that without proving the Sale Deed or without examining the vendor or vendee or other circumstances under which the sale was executed, the Lower Court ought not to have placed reliance on that document. The Lower Court has found that the land covered by Exhibit 10 is a developed land whereas the land acquired is undeveloped land and deductions of 25% is not unreasonable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, 1982 AIR(SC) 940 para 3. In Exhibit 10, there is absolutely no material to rely upon the Court to recommend the enhancement according to the Counsel for the State.

(2.) On the other hand, according to Shri Diniz appearing for the claimant-Respondent, he submits that the Lower Court was justified in relying on Exhibit 10. He further submitted that Exhibit 10 is a certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 4th June, 1987, which is a relevant document for finding out the market value of the acquired land. He submits that there was nothing wrong on the part of the Court below to rely on the document in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. He submits that if sale document cannot be relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer for the reason that it is proved by examining the vendor or vendee or other circumstances of the case, this Court can remand the matter for the purpose of curing that defect. For this purpose, he has relied upon the Judgment in Union of India v. Sunil Chandra Saha, 1995 5 SCC 311 where the Supreme Court has remanded the matter in similar circumstances for proving the Sale Deed. He has also relied upon another decision in Indore Development Authority v. Smt. Satyabhama Bai and others, 1996 6 Supreme 711 where the Supreme Court has in similar circumstances observed :

(3.) Relying upon these two decisions, the Learned Counsel for the Claimant-Respondent Shri Diniz has submitted that this Court can take similar view as the Supreme Court has taken in those two cases. We cannot agree with the submission made by the counsel Shri Diniz. First of all, full facts of those cases are not before us and we do not know what are other accentuating circumstances which prompted the Supreme Court to issue such a direction. Legal position has been made clear by the Supreme Court in P. Ramareddy's case and we are bound by the ratio decidendi propounded by the Supreme Court. In above two cases cited by Learned Counsel Shri Diniz, the Supreme Court did not lay down any legal propositions. What are the decisions of the Supreme Court laying down a ratio decidendi which partakes the character of binding precedent has been held by the Supreme Court in a recent Judgment in Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, 1996 6 SCC 44. The matter also arises in the Land Acquisition Case. It has been held in para 9 in that Judgment as under :