VIKAS NURSERY THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR (RAMCHANDRA UTTAM PRABHU DESSAI) Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PWD (CELL), ALTINHO, PANAJI, GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Appeal No.288 of 2008 is at the instance of the original applicant before the Reference Court seeking the enhanced compensation from that awarded by the learned Reference Court while the First Appeal No.70/2009 is by the acquiring department seeking the reduction in the amount awarded by the Reference Court. The parties would be referred to as the applicant and the respondents for brevity's sake hereinafter to avoid confusion.

(2.) Briefly the respondents no.1 & 2 had issued the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act', for short hereinafter) on 18/02/2000 followed by another Notification under Section 6 dated 16/02/2001 in respect of the applicant's land acquired for widening of the road NH-17 at Dhargalim in Pernem Taluka bearing the distinct Survey Nos.233/2, 224/3, 223/3 and 259/1. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the rate of the land at Rs. 15/- per sq. mt. regarding the bharad/cashew/pond type of land and Rs. 4.50/- per sq. mt. for the tenanted rice land. The learned Reference Court had enhanced the compensation for the bharad land under Survey No.223/2 at Rs. 60/- per sq. mt. and the garden land under Survey No.224/3 and 259/1 at Rs. 80/- per sq. mt. The applicant assailed the judgment and award on the grounds that they were entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 650/- per sq. mt. for the land and Rs. 20,00,000/- as the value for the house and the shop existing in the Survey No.223/2, Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the standing crops and Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the existing compound wall in the Survey No.224/3, 223/2 and 3. The learned Reference Court ought to have held in favour of the applicant and awarded the compensation for the amount claimed and having failed to do so, the impugned judgment and award was perverse as it did not consider the building potential and the learned Reference Court committed an error in accepting the subsequent valuation by ignoring the material placed on record by the applicant.

(3.) The State assailed the judgment and award on the premise that it was contrary to law and the evidence on record, and the learned Reference Court had erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 60/- per sq mt. in respect of the bharad land and Rs. 80/- per sq. mt. in respect of the garden land. The learned Reference Court had relied on the award passed by the District Judge in the Land Acquisition Case No.85/2003 in respect of an adjoining piece of land despite an appeal being filed before this Court to challenge the award and the operation of the award being stayed by this Court. The learned Reference Court fell in error to consider that the land fell within the 40 mts. road widening area or that it was a tenanted paddy field and had no building potential.