SAWAIVIR SADASSIVA RAJENDRA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First appeal questions the quantum of compensation arrived at by the learned IIIrd additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao while passing the judgment and award dated 13. 01. 2005 in respect of the acquisition of two lands, namely; portions of land surveyed under no. 189/1 admeasuring 48,895 sq. mtrs. and under survey no. 169/9 admeasuring 16,951 sq. mtrs. of village poinguinim, Taluka, Canacona, District South Goa belonging to the appellants.

(2.) ACQUISITION for construction of new broad gauge line of Konkan Railway encompassing an area of 8,29,975 sq. mtrs. in Poinguinim and Loliem villages, situated in Taluka Canacona, District south Goa including the said lands was proposed with the publication of Preliminary Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') in the official Gazette dated 27. 06. 1991 vide notification No. 22/99/91-RD dated 10. 06. 1991. The respondent no. 1/special Land Acquisition Officer, south Goa proceeded in accordance with law and after hearing the claimants/appellants made an award under section 11 of the said Act determining the compensation for the said land at Rs. 4/- per sq. mtr. besides compensation for the value of the trees in the said lands on 31. 03. 1994. The appellants being dissatisfied by the award so made by the respondent no. 1/s. L. O. moved an application under section 18 of the said Act seeking compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. mtr. for the land acquired and Rs. 4,06,100/- and rs. 3,30,300/- as compensation for the trees in survey no. 189/1 and 169/6 respectively before the the respondent no. 1/s. L. O. , South Goa, and consequently a reference was made to the District court, South Goa, for adjudication of the claim for compensation made by the appellants in respect of the said lands.

(3.) BEFORE the Referral Court, the issues casting onus on the appellants to prove the market value of the acquired land as well as the trees therein were framed. The appellants examined their constituted attorney Aw. 1/venkatesh Sawkar, valuer Aw. 2/vikas Dessai and the purchaser of the land Aw. 3/prahlad Naik, under Sale deed dated 16. 08. 1988 Exh. Aw. 1/b and produced another sale deed dated 28. 03. 1988 Exh. Aw. 1/c as well as valuation report dated 15. 12. 1997 Exh. 19 in support of the claim. One RW1 Vinod Kumar, Deputy town Planner was examined on behalf of the respondents.