EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WORK DIVISION VII Vs. JOAQUIM DCOSTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a State appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 9/12/2013 pursuant to which the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.222/- per sq. mt. in respect of the survey holdings 308/11, 308/28, 308/45, 308/62 and Rs.189/- per sq. mt. in respect of the survey holdings 308/3 and 308/72 which were acquired for the purpose of laying a road from Codli to Panchawadi and loading bunder at Panchawadi, Ponda Goa. The respondent is the original applicant before the Reference Court and the parties would be referred to as the appellants and the respondent for brevity's sake hereinafter.

(2.) The Government had acquired the land of the respondent admeasuring 6500 sq. mts. from the different survey holdings for the stated purpose pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short hereinafter) published in the Gazette dated 18/09/2006. The Land Acquisition Officer ('LAO' for short) had awarded the compensation at Rs.5/- per sq. mt. and being aggrieved, the respondent made an application under Section 18 of the Act claiming the enhanced compensation of Rs.150/- per sq. mt. The learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award enhanced the compensation to Rs.222/- per sq. mt. in respect of some survey holdings and Rs.189/- per sq. mt. in respect of the two survey holdings with consequential benefit in favour of the respondent giving rise to the appeal at the instance of the State. The appellants questioned the validity of the impugned judgment and award as being illegal, bad in law and passed without consideration of the evidence on record. The learned Reference Court had wrongly construed the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced the compensation in respect of some survey holdings to Rs.222/- per sq. mt. and in respect of two others to Rs.189/- per sq. mt. from that awarded by the LAO at Rs.5/- per sq. mt. without considering the fact that there was no sufficient evidence produced on record.

(3.) The learned Reference Court erred in relying in Ambya Kalya Mhatre (dead) through LR's and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra [2011 (9) SCC 325] and awarded much more compensation as claimed by the respondent which was impermissible in law. The learned Reference Court fell in error in not considering that there was no similarity between the acquired land and the Sale Deed land and no material evidence was produced by the respondent to demonstrate the similarity between the two lands. The learned Reference Court fell in error in not considering the fact that the Sale Deed land was a non-tenanted land and small in size and there was no comparison with the acquired land. The learned Reference Court also erred in relying in Vishnu Narayan Naik (deceased) Rep. By LR's V/s. Deputy Collector (Revenue) and Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. [2008 (2) Goa L.R. 11] since it pertained to a matter regarding the land acquisition for the construction of a housing society unlike the present acquisition which related to the construction of a road from Codli to Panchwadi forming a part of the mining corridor meant for public purpose and would benefit the public at large.